A moving header. A bug, deadly to those with underlying conditions, floating around everywhere would have been a sci-fi movie a year ago and now it's people's reality. My own father has barely been out in three months and is resigned to a much less sociable life until a vaccine is found.
Given the 5.4% infection estimate from the ONS (down from the previous one) and the excess death figure of 64,500, the overall fatality rate in the UK is now looking like about 1.8%.
To my mind the idea that the virus is something that only people with medical conditions need to be worried about became untenable quite a while ago.
Quite a small percentage had no medical conditions
Your table talks about deaths. Mike and Chris have been talking about people having a really nasty illness and hosptialisation. That counts too.
I believe that the airline industry used to 'prefer' crashes with all killed to crashes with lots of injuries, because survivors talk about their dreadful for experience for the rest of their lives and the knock-on effect on the industry is worse. I don't know anyone who has died of it but, like others, know, and know of, people who have had it and talk about how nasty it is. In one case someone had it in March, before lockdown and the last time I saw her, about a fortnight ago was still saying she didn't feel at all 'right'. I'm 82 with mild, but by no means disabling asthma; as soon as there's a vaccine I'll be there!
I wish that he was right that lots of people are too scared to get back to normal. Judging by the High St I was in on Saturday the country has gone collectively nuts. No face masks. No hand sanitizers. No temp controls. No social distancing. And a failed tracing App.
A second spike is a case of 'when' not 'if.'
Mike's friend is spot on to remind us of the dangers that are still present. They haven't gone away. Finding a middle path between the latest demob mentality and lockdown requires precautions which, whilst irritating, are far better than contracting the virus.
And there will not be a resolution until we have a vaccine or proper cure. Dexamethasone may cut by 1/3rd fatalities amongst those on ventilation but that's not a cure as such. Not yet at any rate.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
June 2-5, 2020 Biden supporters Vote for Biden / Vote against Trump / No opinion 37% / 60% / 2%
June 2-5, 2020 Trump supporters Vote for Trump / Vote against Biden / No opinion 70% / 27% / 3%
Of course some of the gap disappears when you take into account Biden's lead. I've only checked the last CNN poll but it has Biden 55, Trump 41 This works out as 20% of registered voters voting for Biden FOR Biden (33% voting for Biden against Trump) And 29% voting for Trump FOR Trump (11% voting for Trump against Biden)
I wish that he was right that lots of people are too scared to get back to normal. Judging by the High St I was in on Saturday the country has gone collectively nuts. No face masks. No hand sanitizers. No temp controls. No social distancing. And a failed tracing App.
A second spike is a case of 'when' not 'if.'
Mike's friend is spot on to remind us of the dangers that are still present. They haven't gone away. Finding a middle path between the latest demob mentality and lockdown requires precautions which, whilst irritating, are far better than contracting the virus.
And there will not be a resolution until we have a vaccine or proper cure. Dexamethasone may cut by 1/3rd fatalities amongst those on ventilation but that's not a cure as such. Not yet at any rate.
BiB - Are you including yourself in that analysis given that you were there?
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
June 2-5, 2020 Biden supporters Vote for Biden / Vote against Trump / No opinion 37% / 60% / 2%
June 2-5, 2020 Trump supporters Vote for Trump / Vote against Biden / No opinion 70% / 27% / 3%
Of course some of the gap disappears when you take into account Biden's lead. I've only checked the last CNN poll but it has Biden 55, Trump 41 This works out as 20% of registered voters voting for Biden FOR Biden (33% voting for Biden against Trump) And 29% voting for Trump FOR Trump (11% voting for Trump against Biden)
Quite. And such studies fail to capture the ham sandwich effect - the very large number of voters who would vote for one if it were the candidate standing against Trump.
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Are we sure that our own secret squirrels will be happy to have immunity removed from their diplomatic covers? It is not as if Russia, say, is in the dark as to who does what at our Moscow embassy. Hard cases make bad law.
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
I wish that he was right that lots of people are too scared to get back to normal. Judging by the High St I was in on Saturday the country has gone collectively nuts. No face masks. No hand sanitizers. No temp controls. No social distancing. And a failed tracing App.
A second spike is a case of 'when' not 'if.'
BiB - Are you including yourself in that analysis given that you were there?
No. I wore a FFP2 high filtration face mask, body swerved elegantly to avoid anyone within 2 metres, carried hand sanitizer and got away fast.
The point is not that people go out. It's the lack of any sensible precautions when they do.
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Roosevelt was also a eugenicist and a racist, promoting for example sterilisation for various undesirable/inferior groups. Not untypical for Establishment men of his generation.
He, and many others, eg Churchill have been romanticised and ruthlessly exploited by conservative forces. Their reputations will only be (partially) restored when we accept a rounded analysis of their lives, and stop trying to depict them as saints or heroes.
They really haven't, at any level higher than the English Defence League. Nobody else thinks that to erect a statue of someone is to treat them as a saint. As to heroes, that is a fair way to describe how we regard Nelson or Churchill, but that's because they are. So we commemorate them, but that's not to say we worship them. As to rounded analyses, if you can't already find these try Amazon. Churchill's flaws have no more been covered up than the fact of the slave trade has.
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Roosevelt was also a eugenicist and a racist, promoting for example sterilisation for various undesirable/inferior groups. Not untypical for Establishment men of his generation.
He, and many others, eg Churchill have been romanticised and ruthlessly exploited by conservative forces. Their reputations will only be (partially) restored when we accept a rounded analysis of their lives, and stop trying to depict them as saints or heroes.
They really haven't, at any level higher than the English Defence League. Nobody else thinks that to erect a statue of someone is to treat them as a saint. As to heroes, that is a fair way to describe how we regard Nelson or Churchill, but that's because they are. So we commemorate them, but that's not to say we worship them. As to rounded analyses, if you can't already find these try Amazon. Churchill's flaws have no more been covered up than the fact of the slave trade has.
Would you say denying Churchill was a white supremacist and stating he was the greatest Briton that ever lived comes from rounded analysis?
A moving header. A bug, deadly to those with underlying conditions, floating around everywhere would have been a sci-fi movie a year ago and now it's people's reality. My own father has barely been out in three months and is resigned to a much less sociable life until a vaccine is found.
Given the 5.4% infection estimate from the ONS (down from the previous one) and the excess death figure of 64,500, the overall fatality rate in the UK is now looking like about 1.8%.
To my mind the idea that the virus is something that only people with medical conditions need to be worried about became untenable quite a while ago.
Quite a small percentage had no medical conditions
Your table talks about deaths. Mike and Chris have been talking about people having a really nasty illness and hosptialisation. That counts too.
Also "underlying conditions" are very common in the general population. 50% of over 65's in the UK have hypertension for example.
And not all as relevant as that. I have a long term medical condition that I don’t believe would have any bearing on how badly I might take the virus, yet carrying the label would be enough for it to be reported I had an underlying condition, if it came to that.
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Roosevelt was also a eugenicist and a racist, promoting for example sterilisation for various undesirable/inferior groups. Not untypical for Establishment men of his generation.
He, and many others, eg Churchill have been romanticised and ruthlessly exploited by conservative forces. Their reputations will only be (partially) restored when we accept a rounded analysis of their lives, and stop trying to depict them as saints or heroes.
They really haven't, at any level higher than the English Defence League. Nobody else thinks that to erect a statue of someone is to treat them as a saint. As to heroes, that is a fair way to describe how we regard Nelson or Churchill, but that's because they are. So we commemorate them, but that's not to say we worship them. As to rounded analyses, if you can't already find these try Amazon. Churchill's flaws have no more been covered up than the fact of the slave trade has.
Would you say denying Churchill was a white supremacist and stating he was the greatest Briton that ever lived comes from rounded analysis?
Condemnation of Churchill's views on, say, India, amongst other matters is easily found in the words of Sir Winston's acclaimed biograper, the Right Honourable Boris Johnson, PC, MP. And if Boris knows, it is not a secret.
ETA maybe the statue-defacers all read Boris's book.
The median age for positive virus cases in the US has until recently been around 48, but now several states are recording many more cases among younger people.
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Roosevelt was also a eugenicist and a racist, promoting for example sterilisation for various undesirable/inferior groups. Not untypical for Establishment men of his generation.
He, and many others, eg Churchill have been romanticised and ruthlessly exploited by conservative forces. Their reputations will only be (partially) restored when we accept a rounded analysis of their lives, and stop trying to depict them as saints or heroes.
They really haven't, at any level higher than the English Defence League. Nobody else thinks that to erect a statue of someone is to treat them as a saint. As to heroes, that is a fair way to describe how we regard Nelson or Churchill, but that's because they are. So we commemorate them, but that's not to say we worship them. As to rounded analyses, if you can't already find these try Amazon. Churchill's flaws have no more been covered up than the fact of the slave trade has.
Would you say denying Churchill was a white supremacist and stating he was the greatest Briton that ever lived comes from rounded analysis?
Condemnation of Churchill's views on, say, India, amongst other matters is easily found in the words of Sir Winston's acclaimed biograper, the Right Honourable Boris Johnson, PC, MP. And if Boris knows, it is not a secret.
ETA maybe the statue-defacers all read Boris's book.
I'd say if a cabinet minister can tweet that Churchill was not a white supremacist that either Churchill's views on race are a secret or else there's some concerted turd polishing going on.
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Roosevelt was also a eugenicist and a racist, promoting for example sterilisation for various undesirable/inferior groups. Not untypical for Establishment men of his generation.
He, and many others, eg Churchill have been romanticised and ruthlessly exploited by conservative forces. Their reputations will only be (partially) restored when we accept a rounded analysis of their lives, and stop trying to depict them as saints or heroes.
They really haven't, at any level higher than the English Defence League. Nobody else thinks that to erect a statue of someone is to treat them as a saint. As to heroes, that is a fair way to describe how we regard Nelson or Churchill, but that's because they are. So we commemorate them, but that's not to say we worship them. As to rounded analyses, if you can't already find these try Amazon. Churchill's flaws have no more been covered up than the fact of the slave trade has.
Would you say denying Churchill was a white supremacist and stating he was the greatest Briton that ever lived comes from rounded analysis?
1. Rounded analysis would never give a yes/no answer 2. Is just a gag. Isaac Newton and Wayne Rooney are also acceptable answers.
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
Don't Fear the Reaper indeed!
Yes, I have it as my ringtone. Macabre humour...
You crazy medicos.
You have to admire the massive sense of humour within occupations that spend their lives dealing with things most people would never want to experience.
Medics, police, military all have their own funny ways of compartmentalising the bad stuff.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
The median age for positive virus cases in the US has until recently been around 48, but now several states are recording many more cases among younger people.
Young Americans are all convinced it's an old people's disease, and have no appetite at all for locking themselves away for any longer than they have already.
The scale of the recent protests is as a much a reaction to the lockdown as anything else, there was always going to be a spark somewhere that would act to get the American kids out of their homes.
Enthusiasm for your candidate to win / Fear the other candidate might win / (Don’t know)
I'd like to see this polling rephrased as "enthusiasm that the other candidate might lose"
Well yes. The question is not "are there lots of people enthused with Biden" (to which the answer is obviously "no"), but are there lots of people enthused about getting rid of Trump, and are they now enthusiastic than the people who want to keep him.
The median age for positive virus cases in the US has until recently been around 48, but now several states are recording many more cases among younger people.
Young Americans are all convinced it's an old people's disease, and have no appetite at all for locking themselves away for any longer than they have already.
The scale of the recent protests is as a much a reaction to the lockdown as anything else, there was always going to be a spark somewhere that would act to get the American kids out of their homes.
This US doctor argues that American individualism is the reason why the US is struggling to make any dent in the new case statistics
The median age for positive virus cases in the US has until recently been around 48, but now several states are recording many more cases among younger people.
Young Americans are all convinced it's an old people's disease, and have no appetite at all for locking themselves away for any longer than they have already.
The scale of the recent protests is as a much a reaction to the lockdown as anything else, there was always going to be a spark somewhere that would act to get the American kids out of their homes.
The problem comes when they go see granny in her old people's home...
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
Don't Fear the Reaper indeed!
Yes, I have it as my ringtone. Macabre humour...
You crazy medicos.
You have to admire the massive sense of humour within occupations that spend their lives dealing with things most people would never want to experience.
Medics, police, military all have their own funny ways of compartmentalising the bad stuff.
Absolutely, but do have to keep it away from civilians. Gallows humour is part of comradeship to deal with stress.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
He was not inside for anything terrorism-related. He seems to have been violent and schizophrenic. Not the first time mentally ill people have been radicalised and incited to terrorist acts, and this chap was ideal as he was violent already.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
He was not inside for anything terrorism-related. He seems to have been violent and schizophrenic. Not the first time mentally ill people have been radicalised and incited to terrorist acts, and this chap was ideal as he was violent already.
I don't care what he was in for , it should be instant deportation.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Are we sure that our own secret squirrels will be happy to have immunity removed from their diplomatic covers? It is not as if Russia, say, is in the dark as to who does what at our Moscow embassy. Hard cases make bad law.
It's not a hard case. As Sir Ivor indicated, it is extremely doubtful that she ever had cover but even so she would certainly have got a fair trial here and if convicted probably a modest sentence.
What message is the US sending here - rule of law or might is right? If they don't cooperate, this could become a very hard case indeed.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
OGH, there are three possible ways out - in addition to a palliative and a vaccine, we could develop a cure (i.e. something that kills the virus, rather than treating the symptoms or preventing infection)
Four. If we develop a fast, self-contained, and rapid reliable test for infection, the virus will be driven extinct in short order.
Mike is right that the new normal is going to be nothing like the old normal until we have an effective vaccine or much better treatment. I was in Parliament House on Friday collecting papers. It was dirty, dusty and very largely deserted. Each table, which used to sit 8 advocates, now has a single chair. The carpets and floors are covered in 2m signage (we may have a mini boom for some if this becomes 1m) and hand sterilisers are everywhere. It was grim and nothing like my place of work in February. Of course the restaurants and cafes on the Royal Mile remain closed and in Scotland there is no clear idea when that might change. I went to Pret for a sandwich for lunch. It was not busy and seemed just a tad desperate. Traffic remained low by Edinburgh standards although clearly busier than a month ago. We have a long, long way to go to get things moving again.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
Yes it’s Father’s Day, even though that is counterintuitive. You can argue it is a day for an individual - your father. I’d rather it was plural possessive, but it just isn’t.
Modern Father's day is in part modelled on Mother's day, which was created by Anna Jarvis.
In 1912, Jarvis incorporated her own association, trademarked the white carnation and the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day". She was specific about the location of the apostrophe; it was to be a singular possessive, for each family to honour their mother, not a plural possessive commemorating all mothers in the world.
Excuse me.
It is not 'Mother's Day'. In Britain it is 'Mothering Sunday' and it dates back to the 16th century at least. In Britain it was reinvigorated by Constance Penswick-Smith, daughter of the vicar of Coddington church where my wife and I were married.
We will have none of your colonial rubbish over here thankyou very much.
And if you believe that, you’ll believe in Santa Claus.
It is fact, backed up by records. Though I know you have a very dubious relationship with the truth so it is difficult for you to understand that concept.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
The median age for positive virus cases in the US has until recently been around 48, but now several states are recording many more cases among younger people.
Young Americans are all convinced it's an old people's disease, and have no appetite at all for locking themselves away for any longer than they have already.
The scale of the recent protests is as a much a reaction to the lockdown as anything else, there was always going to be a spark somewhere that would act to get the American kids out of their homes.
This US doctor argues that American individualism is the reason why the US is struggling to make any dent in the new case statistics
Oh indeed. There's an ingrained distrust of authority there, on a scale that just doesn't exist anywhere else. UK is a relatively libertarian country, probably in the top 10% worldwide, but not close to the USA.
They also haven't had quite the same fiscal response as other places either, a lot of people have had little choice but to go back to work, even in non-essential positions. Looking from afar, the UK financial response has been very good indeed in terms of targeting the assistance where it's been most needed.
Leicester is still a hotspot, with cases running at about half of the April peak. It tends to be a younger age and so lower risk. I think it reflects people going back to work.
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
Don't Fear the Reaper indeed!
Yes, I have it as my ringtone. Macabre humour...
You crazy medicos.
You have to admire the massive sense of humour within occupations that spend their lives dealing with things most people would never want to experience.
Medics, police, military all have their own funny ways of compartmentalising the bad stuff.
Absolutely, but do have to keep it away from civilians. Gallows humour is part of comradeship to deal with stress.
In IT we always laugh to each other about the "problem between the keyboard and the chair", but it's not quite the same level as when seeing death and disaster all the time.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168 ... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton. For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith. Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy. Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer. They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments. But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
Straight swap: Sacoolas for Andrew. Job done.
There shouldn't be any technical legal arguments. It should simply be a question of what is right and what is wrong. There's no moral basis for obstructing the normal course of justice here and the US should hand the woman over without delay.
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
As I indicated, I've some sympathy but if you're not careful you end up effectively condemning people to death for minor offences. It's tricky, but a blanket 'chuck 'em out' approach is too simplistic.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
A rare point of agreement there Malcolm. If you're sentenced to a year or more in prison, then you've clearly overstayed your welcome in the country.
Every other country deports foreign criminals, and the assumption should be that you are deported straight from prison and can appeal at your own expense from abroad.
Perhaps there is also a need to better educate new arrivals of rights and responsibilities, and of things which are illegal which might not be elsewhere. (although clearly murder is illegal everywhere).
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
As I indicated, I've some sympathy but if you're not careful you end up effectively condemning people to death for minor offences. It's tricky, but a blanket 'chuck 'em out' approach is too simplistic.
On the contrary, a simple solution is exactly what is required. The merit of simplicity in this instance would be that everybody thinking of coming to this country would know upfront that receiving a jail sentence in Britain would result in deportation at the end of it - that is fairer to the individuals concerned than a system with more nuance or complexity.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
As I indicated, I've some sympathy but if you're not careful you end up effectively condemning people to death for minor offences. It's tricky, but a blanket 'chuck 'em out' approach is too simplistic.
Minor offences such as exceeding the speed limit don't end in a prison sentence though. Well unless you then attempt to pervert the course of justice thereafter but that's another matter
Hi Richard. I read your post last nite about the guys at Lincoln but was too tired to answer.
They sound a right bunch of pricks. I hope you make your views known. Is their attitude any worse though than those that taught me history according to The Great Man theory, important dates and lists of Kings and Queens?
The problem is that teaching history is difficult and few are up to the task. What do we do, abandon the subject and teach only pure sciences?
If the School wanted to alter the way it taught history, fairy nuff...they should just have gone ahead and done so. The fact they felt inclined to make a pompous announcement suggests they didn't have much faith in the way they had been doing it, or, more likely, they were just posturing. Either way they don't come out of it looking good.
In the circumstances it sounds like the best place for the kids get acquire a critical understanding of the subject is in the home. I'm sure yours have a big advantage in that respect. Pity the other poor sods, but then they probably prefer maths.
The Reading terrorist suspect was only released from prison two weeks ago.after serving less than half of a 28 month sentence.
To the extent he was radicalised in prison, one dreads to think what he might have done after another 14 months.
Why do these people not get deported the second they leave jail, has to be pretty serious to get 28 months jail in UK and then to just let him out after 7 , pathetic. Should be immediate deportation.
I don't know the answer, Malc, but I suspect it's because he would face an uncertain and possibly grisly fate if returned to Libya. It just ain't a safe space.
Unfortunately we make the UK the same by just letting these types out to murder people Pete. I would rather he was in danger in Libya than over here murdering our families.
Feel your pain, Malc, but not sure I'm in favor of tossing criminals into the Ocean. They're not all psychopaths.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If someone isn't a British citizen, and they come to the country and commit a serious criminal offence that warrants a custodial sentence, they should be returned from whence they came - there is nothing 'uncivilised' about this.
As I indicated, I've some sympathy but if you're not careful you end up effectively condemning people to death for minor offences. It's tricky, but a blanket 'chuck 'em out' approach is too simplistic.
Minor offences such as exceeding the speed limit don't end in a prison sentence though. Well unless you then attempt to pervert the course of justice thereafter but that's another matter
The reality is you end up with a lot of very tricky and sad cases. Your example is a good one. Supposing for arguments sake the guy is mildly schizophrenic and commits a serious driving offence whilst experiencing a bad spell. He gets a short prison sentence. You going to drop this guy off at the beach in Bengazi when he comes out?
You might feel like doing it. I might too. But really....?
What a useless political party. Forget new horizons, this will be the Brexit of brown Windsor soup and the great British sausage.
Surely the whole point of the Conservative Party (or one of its whole points, possibly at loggerheads with other whole points) is to conserve ancient practices like restricted Sunday trading, Brown Windsor Soup and the great British sausage. In any case, Europe's leading economy closes Sundays, and if it is good enough for Germany... https://www.berlin.de/en/tourism/travel-information/1740536-2862820-shopping-hours-sunday-shopping.en.html
If its to conserve Brown Windsor soup then they've failed.
OGH, there are three possible ways out - in addition to a palliative and a vaccine, we could develop a cure (i.e. something that kills the virus, rather than treating the symptoms or preventing infection)
Four. If we develop a fast, self-contained, and rapid reliable test for infection, the virus will be driven extinct in short order.
Five The virus disappears as mysteriously as it arrived.
Sweating sickness, also known as English sweating sickness or English sweat or (Latin) sudor anglicus, was a mysterious and contagious disease that struck England and later continental Europe in a series of epidemics beginning in 1485. The last outbreak occurred in 1551, after which the disease apparently vanished.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
Yes it’s Father’s Day, even though that is counterintuitive. You can argue it is a day for an individual - your father. I’d rather it was plural possessive, but it just isn’t.
Modern Father's day is in part modelled on Mother's day, which was created by Anna Jarvis.
In 1912, Jarvis incorporated her own association, trademarked the white carnation and the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day". She was specific about the location of the apostrophe; it was to be a singular possessive, for each family to honour their mother, not a plural possessive commemorating all mothers in the world.
Excuse me.
It is not 'Mother's Day'. In Britain it is 'Mothering Sunday' and it dates back to the 16th century at least. In Britain it was reinvigorated by Constance Penswick-Smith, daughter of the vicar of Coddington church where my wife and I were married.
We will have none of your colonial rubbish over here thankyou very much.
And if you believe that, you’ll believe in Santa Claus.
It is fact, backed up by records. Though I know you have a very dubious relationship with the truth so it is difficult for you to understand that concept.
It is certainly a fact: Mothering Sunday is the day when people who moved away return to their "Mother" church. The commercialisation of the day as "Mother's Day" may obscure its original purpose but that it was an Anglican tradition for centuries before Clinton Cards is a fact.
OGH, there are three possible ways out - in addition to a palliative and a vaccine, we could develop a cure (i.e. something that kills the virus, rather than treating the symptoms or preventing infection)
Four. If we develop a fast, self-contained, and rapid reliable test for infection, the virus will be driven extinct in short order.
Five The virus disappears as mysteriously as it arrived.
Sweating sickness, also known as English sweating sickness or English sweat or (Latin) sudor anglicus, was a mysterious and contagious disease that struck England and later continental Europe in a series of epidemics beginning in 1485. The last outbreak occurred in 1551, after which the disease apparently vanished.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Richard,
Whilst not disagreeing re Fox, Grayling and Hannan, why Letwin? I note from previous posts you are not the only one to think him useless so I would like to know what I am missing.
I haven't witnessed anything to put him with those. I also have had some personal dealings with him and I was very impressed and by all accounts Letwin and Laws did an excellent job advising the inner cabinet during the coalition years.
In these woke times, even sending a fathers day tweet is a minefield.
It's super easy for Labour, just send a picture of Starmer and his kids, if they are ok with being used as props. It's the kind of thing Blair and Dave would do.
You would think, but there was probably a 3hr planning meeting to try to ensure any possible avenues of offense was ruled out.
Yes, one has the distinct impression a committee was involved there.
Btw, why the apostrophe? The Day doesn't belong to anyone. So it's simply Fathers Day (the day to think about Fathers). No?
No. It's like All Saints' Day.
COD has it as Father's, presumably as the day dedicated to the father one happens to have.
Yes it’s Father’s Day, even though that is counterintuitive. You can argue it is a day for an individual - your father. I’d rather it was plural possessive, but it just isn’t.
Modern Father's day is in part modelled on Mother's day, which was created by Anna Jarvis.
In 1912, Jarvis incorporated her own association, trademarked the white carnation and the phrases "second Sunday in May" and "Mother's Day". She was specific about the location of the apostrophe; it was to be a singular possessive, for each family to honour their mother, not a plural possessive commemorating all mothers in the world.
Excuse me.
It is not 'Mother's Day'. In Britain it is 'Mothering Sunday' and it dates back to the 16th century at least. In Britain it was reinvigorated by Constance Penswick-Smith, daughter of the vicar of Coddington church where my wife and I were married.
We will have none of your colonial rubbish over here thankyou very much.
And if you believe that, you’ll believe in Santa Claus.
It is fact, backed up by records. Though I know you have a very dubious relationship with the truth so it is difficult for you to understand that concept.
It is certainly a fact: Mothering Sunday is the day when people who moved away return to their "Mother" church. The commercialisation of the day as "Mother's Day" may obscure its original purpose but that it was an Anglican tradition for centuries before Clinton Cards is a fact.
Mothering Sunday is always the 4th Sunday in Lent. One of the Bible readings for that day for centuries included the phrase: 'Jerusalem....is the mother of us all.' hence Mothering Sunday.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You can easily end up backing the field in that market. Better to lay the favorites.
I expect Harris and imo her price at a shade under evens is value. That said, I'm not doing it. It would be annoying to lump on and lose. I'm sticking to the knitting for now - Trump Toast.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Why do you say that about Mandelson ? I would be interested to know the reasoning. I have never been a fan either although he is obviously smart. What would he bring to it which would mean he is not just another middle aged, wealthy, white male in a position of influence.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
Blimey. What ever your views on Mandelson as a politician, he was an effective minister in many departments. And a EU official.
Has to be a far better choice than Dr Fox.
I'd agree that Mandelson was effective in some posts.
But i don't think that that is enough - imo he not the most honest individual in the world in conducting his public affairs, and has an ego the size of the Great Pyramid.
in LOTR terms, he is "tricksy".
I think the nickname I gave him quite a few years ago - Lord Mandelbrot, is about right.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Richard,
Whilst not disagreeing re Fox, Grayling and Hannan, why Letwin? I note from previous posts you are not the only one to think him useless so I would like to know what I am missing.
I haven't witnessed anything to put him with those. I also have had some personal dealings with him and I was very impressed and by all accounts Letwin and Laws did an excellent job advising the inner cabinet during the coalition years.
What don't I know?
How about 'disco and drugs' to the poll tax to his disastrous performance as Shadow Chancellor to letting burglars into his house to putting official documents in a park bin to giving taxpayers money to Kids Company after being warned not to to his meddling over Brexit ?
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Why do you say that about Mandelson ? I would be interested to know the reasoning. I have never been a fan either although he is obviously smart. What would he bring to it which would mean he is not just another middle aged, wealthy, white male in a position of influence.
As for Fox, dear me, what an awful choice.
Hey, if he could keep the cabinet of Gordon Brown afloat through James Purnell's resignation, he's got something about him. And he got the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running quite successfully for a brief initial period, which was not a gimme - indeed, it's more than can be said for most of his successors. He then went to Brussels and on the whole was a pretty effective trade commissioner.
As for salesman, he was the man who created New Labour, one of the most successful political marketing campaigns of all time.
His record is highly impressive. It's not by any means unblemished, but he's a big and successful figure. When you consider other potential candidates, he would probably stack up favourably against just about any of them.
But as @MaxPB notes, our nominee won't get it so it's moot.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Good post.
Refreshing to see somebody extolling the virtues of a politician rather than all the slagging off we usually get.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Richard,
Whilst not disagreeing re Fox, Grayling and Hannan, why Letwin? I note from previous posts you are not the only one to think him useless so I would like to know what I am missing.
I haven't witnessed anything to put him with those. I also have had some personal dealings with him and I was very impressed and by all accounts Letwin and Laws did an excellent job advising the inner cabinet during the coalition years.
What don't I know?
How about 'disco and drugs' to the poll tax to his disastrous performance as Shadow Chancellor to letting burglars into his house to putting official documents in a park bin to giving taxpayers money to Kids Company after being warned not to to his meddling over Brexit ?
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Why do you say that about Mandelson ? I would be interested to know the reasoning. I have never been a fan either although he is obviously smart. What would he bring to it which would mean he is not just another middle aged, wealthy, white male in a position of influence.
As for Fox, dear me, what an awful choice.
Hey, if he could keep the cabinet of Gordon Brown afloat through James Purnell's resignation, he's got something about him. And he got the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running quite successfully for a brief initial period, which was not a gimme - indeed, it's more than can be said for most of his successors. He then went to Brussels and on the whole was a pretty effective trade commissioner.
As for salesman, he was the man who created New Labour, one of the most successful political marketing campaigns of all time.
His record is highly impressive. It's not by any means unblemished, but he's a big and successful figure. When you consider other potential candidates, he would probably stack up favourably against just about any of them.
But as @MaxPB notes, our nominee won't get it so it's moot.
Anyway, teaching calls. Have a good morning.
He's talented and effective.
But demonstrably of poor moral character and poor judgement
Someone who is willing to commit fraud is not a suitable nominee for the UK
Amazingly, I now think it possible they will attempt to destroy it, as it commemorates:
Thomas Jefferson, a slave owner: his statues have already come down George Washington, a slave owner: his statue was toppled in Oregon Abraham Lincoln, a racist: his statues have been defaced in several places Theodore Roosevelt: a "colonialist" - his statue is now departing NYC
That's a lot of icons begging to be broken
Given the massive challenges we are facing on the health, economic and environmental fronts right now all this stuff about statues and "wokeness" has a distinct air of fiddling while Rome burns.
i completely agree, the problem is once you start an iconoclasm they are very hard to stop until they burn themselves out or self-destruct. Once one graven image is deemed so hateful it must be broken, then why is this almost identical graven image allowed? It cannot be allowed! Burn it down!
They have an inner logic and volition.
Students and youngsters have been demonstrating and outraging their elders since time began. All that's changed is that you and Bluesest Blue have morphed into today's "disgusted from Tunbridge Wells". It just hasn't dawned on you yet
'Outraging your elders' now means tearing down the foundations of our civilization? That's some impressive historical illiteracy you've got going on there...
You could hear exactly the same sentiments during the Vietnam demonstrations, gay rights demonstrations, poll tax demonstrations, Toxteth riots, etc etc etc.
You are behaving like a superannuated old colonel claiming that moving a few old statues constitutes "tearing down the foundations of our civilisation". Give your head a wobble and actually listen to yourself.
It's a few old statues. At the end of the day half a dozen will end up being moved into a museum where they probably belonged in the first place.
If you are really worried about the future of civilisation you would be better turning your attention to the current pandemic raging across the planet and the economic consequences heading our way.
Thinking that "old" in "a few old statues" is a negative, puts one in mind of Betjeman
"And what was the funniest part, We smashed some rotten old pictures that were priceless works of art."
I wasn't advocating destroying them , I was saying that they were old in the context that they would be better served being in a museum. Many of them were vanity projects for the wealthy and few have much artistic merit as far as I can tell.
Fox is not exactly an inspiring pick. It’s an important post.
There are worse choices - Grayling, Letwin, Hannan for starters.
Well, agreed, but that's not a good answer. For a role like this we want the *best* candidate, not one slightly less awful than Dan Hannan. I mean, Juncker would be a worse pick too, but nobody is stupid enough to want a man currently expending all his energy trying to avoid having to talk to police about whether he authorised the criminal actions of his spies.
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
Why do you say that about Mandelson ? I would be interested to know the reasoning. I have never been a fan either although he is obviously smart. What would he bring to it which would mean he is not just another middle aged, wealthy, white male in a position of influence.
As for Fox, dear me, what an awful choice.
Hey, if he could keep the cabinet of Gordon Brown afloat through James Purnell's resignation, he's got something about him. And he got the Northern Ireland Assembly up and running quite successfully for a brief initial period, which was not a gimme - indeed, it's more than can be said for most of his successors. He then went to Brussels and on the whole was a pretty effective trade commissioner.
As for salesman, he was the man who created New Labour, one of the most successful political marketing campaigns of all time.
His record is highly impressive. It's not by any means unblemished, but he's a big and successful figure. When you consider other potential candidates, he would probably stack up favourably against just about any of them.
But as @MaxPB notes, our nominee won't get it so it's moot.
Anyway, teaching calls. Have a good morning.
Yes, you too and in a straight choice between Fox and Mandelson it would be no contest.
Comments
I don't know anyone who has died of it but, like others, know, and know of, people who have had it and talk about how nasty it is. In one case someone had it in March, before lockdown and the last time I saw her, about a fortnight ago was still saying she didn't feel at all 'right'.
I'm 82 with mild, but by no means disabling asthma; as soon as there's a vaccine I'll be there!
I wish that he was right that lots of people are too scared to get back to normal. Judging by the High St I was in on Saturday the country has gone collectively nuts. No face masks. No hand sanitizers. No temp controls. No social distancing. And a failed tracing App.
A second spike is a case of 'when' not 'if.'
Mike's friend is spot on to remind us of the dangers that are still present. They haven't gone away. Finding a middle path between the latest demob mentality and lockdown requires precautions which, whilst irritating, are far better than contracting the virus.
And there will not be a resolution until we have a vaccine or proper cure. Dexamethasone may cut by 1/3rd fatalities amongst those on ventilation but that's not a cure as such. Not yet at any rate.
Harry Dunn: Anne Sacoolas immunity "a palpable absurdity"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-53132168
... In Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependents" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton.
For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith.
Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy.
Although the judges at the High Court agreed that Sir Ivor was a leading figure in the study of diplomacy, they did not accept his report on the technical grounds that he was not a practising lawyer.
They rejected an application by the Dunns to force the Foreign Office to disclose evidence relating to a "secret agreement" between the US and British governments.
But this was a preliminary hearing, and it seems reasonable to assume that Sir Ivor's scathing opinion of the case presented by the Foreign Office and the US embassy will have an influence on the case as it continues.
This works out as 20% of registered voters voting for Biden FOR Biden (33% voting for Biden against Trump)
And 29% voting for Trump FOR Trump (11% voting for Trump against Biden)
On the other hand, PPE and social distancing has stopped me getting it, and has become a way of life. With appropriate precautions life goes on.
Pubs, restaurants, music venues, theatre, and football matches are all things that remain a significant risk. I have booked some tickets for autumn shows though. Deep Purple and Blue Oyster Cult on a farewell tour, too good to miss.
And such studies fail to capture the ham sandwich effect - the very large number of voters who would vote for one if it were the candidate standing against Trump.
The point is not that people go out. It's the lack of any sensible precautions when they do.
You crazy medicos.
https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1274404689895804928?s=20
ETA maybe the statue-defacers all read Boris's book.
Medics, police, military all have their own funny ways of compartmentalising the bad stuff.
The scale of the recent protests is as a much a reaction to the lockdown as anything else, there was always going to be a spark somewhere that would act to get the American kids out of their homes.
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1274811482962788352?s=20
https://us.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/06/20/william-schaffner-us-coronavirus-trending-other-countries-lemon-intv-ctn-vpx.cnn
There was a simarly case many years ago involving a foreign diplomat killing someone in New York. Nobody argued the niceties. He was simply handed over on principle. It was the right thing to do.
The US are behaving like shits here. We should show our disdain. Step forward Raab. Show us what you're made of.
What message is the US sending here - rule of law or might is right? If they don't cooperate, this could become a very hard case indeed.
It's a problem, I agree, but we have civilised standards and we should stick to them.
If we develop a fast, self-contained, and rapid reliable test for infection, the virus will be driven extinct in short order.
Of course the restaurants and cafes on the Royal Mile remain closed and in Scotland there is no clear idea when that might change. I went to Pret for a sandwich for lunch. It was not busy and seemed just a tad desperate.
Traffic remained low by Edinburgh standards although clearly busier than a month ago. We have a long, long way to go to get things moving again.
They also haven't had quite the same fiscal response as other places either, a lot of people have had little choice but to go back to work, even in non-essential positions. Looking from afar, the UK financial response has been very good indeed in terms of targeting the assistance where it's been most needed.
Every other country deports foreign criminals, and the assumption should be that you are deported straight from prison and can appeal at your own expense from abroad.
Perhaps there is also a need to better educate new arrivals of rights and responsibilities, and of things which are illegal which might not be elsewhere. (although clearly murder is illegal everywhere).
Hi Richard. I read your post last nite about the guys at Lincoln but was too tired to answer.
They sound a right bunch of pricks. I hope you make your views known. Is their attitude any worse though than those that taught me history according to The Great Man theory, important dates and lists of Kings and Queens?
The problem is that teaching history is difficult and few are up to the task. What do we do, abandon the subject and teach only pure sciences?
If the School wanted to alter the way it taught history, fairy nuff...they should just have gone ahead and done so. The fact they felt inclined to make a pompous announcement suggests they didn't have much faith in the way they had been doing it, or, more likely, they were just posturing. Either way they don't come out of it looking good.
In the circumstances it sounds like the best place for the kids get acquire a critical understanding of the subject is in the home. I'm sure yours have a big advantage in that respect. Pity the other poor sods, but then they probably prefer maths.
Who the bloody hell is Kyrsten Sinema? She's in a BBC round up of Veep candidates.
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53088353)
Not even on BF's list!!
Yikes. Does BBC know something the rest of us don't?
You might feel like doing it. I might too. But really....?
None of the supermarkets sell it.
Unlikely pick.
It’s an important post.
He's not done anything else, that's for sure
Has to be a far better choice than Dr Fox.
The virus disappears as mysteriously as it arrived.
Sweating sickness, also known as English sweating sickness or English sweat or (Latin) sudor anglicus, was a mysterious and contagious disease that struck England and later continental Europe in a series of epidemics beginning in 1485. The last outbreak occurred in 1551, after which the disease apparently vanished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating_sickness#:~:text=Sweating sickness, also known as,which the disease apparently vanished.
Whilst not disagreeing re Fox, Grayling and Hannan, why Letwin? I note from previous posts you are not the only one to think him useless so I would like to know what I am missing.
I haven't witnessed anything to put him with those. I also have had some personal dealings with him and I was very impressed and by all accounts Letwin and Laws did an excellent job advising the inner cabinet during the coalition years.
What don't I know?
I actually think, speaking as somebody who has never actually liked him, that Mandelson would make a superb head of the WTO. He has great ability, a knack for getting people to work together, is a superb salesman and has a wide knowledge of international trade. He might also be the person to pull it back into shape after years of chaos and ineffectiveness.
But Johnson too factionalist to nominate him.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/503821-green-party-nominee-says-sanders-progressives-have-failed-to-pull-dems-to
NOT THIS YEAR!! GO AWAY AND DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR PAPERS!
As for Fox, dear me, what an awful choice.
But i don't think that that is enough - imo he not the most honest individual in the world in conducting his public affairs, and has an ego the size of the Great Pyramid.
in LOTR terms, he is "tricksy".
I think the nickname I gave him quite a few years ago - Lord Mandelbrot, is about right.
Low bar, I know, but it's something.
As for salesman, he was the man who created New Labour, one of the most successful political marketing campaigns of all time.
His record is highly impressive. It's not by any means unblemished, but he's a big and successful figure. When you consider other potential candidates, he would probably stack up favourably against just about any of them.
But as @MaxPB notes, our nominee won't get it so it's moot.
Anyway, teaching calls. Have a good morning.
Refreshing to see somebody extolling the virtues of a politician rather than all the slagging off we usually get.
Disco and drugs? What's that?
Don't agree with you on 'meddling over Brexit'
But demonstrably of poor moral character and poor judgement
Someone who is willing to commit fraud is not a suitable nominee for the UK