Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
She's not been fired like that. She's still a Labour MP.
Elected. You're big on that sort of thing aren't you.
If Starmer truly wanted to fire her he could withdraw the whip.
Splitting hairs. If you want me to clarify when I said "fired" I meant fired from her office of shadow education secretary. Which is still a dismissal. WIthdrawal of the whip is a separate issue.
I know what you mean. It's not a real dismissal. Not like organisations sacking people for causing significant harm to the organisation.
If a company sacks an employee for bringing the company into disrepute that doesn't really simply mean keeping them on at full salary but in a slightly lower profile role.
Yesterday RLB was a Labour MP. Today she still is. Same salary as she had yesterday. Same employer. Same organisation.
You specifically said that you fired someone for a Tweet. After you fired them did they still work for you? Did they still work in your organisation? Were they still claiming full salary and able to portray themselves still as a member of your organisation?
The Labour Party doesn’t pay her salary. She gets that just for being an MP. Starmer can’t kick her out of the Commons even if he withdrew the whip.
You are having a pointless argument about the semantics of the word “fired” with the wrong person. You clearly think she should have had the whip withdrawn as well as being fired from the shadow cabinet. That’s your prerogative. I have no dog in the fight as I am not a member nor a supporter of the Labour Party. He could have “fired” her in a very literal sense into the sun or out of a cannon for all I care.
Starmer can't kick her out of the Commons immediately but see for example Williamson: removing the whip removes them from the Commons eventually.
I'm saying she wasn't fired. Fired means removed from the organisation. Gone. She's not gone she is still Labour. Demoting someone isn't firing them.
Williamson had the whip removed. He was fired. Starmer hasn't removed the whip from a single anti-Semite yet.
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
What about the Papua New Guinea cannibalism remark?
Well, yes but at least 149 further deaths recorded and there's little doubt in my mind the true death toll is well above 60,000.
Slight rise in the number of new cases as well - I've long been of the view we needed two weeks of deaths >100 and new cases >1000 before we substantially re-opened the economy but other considerations have taken precedence.
As for Bournemouth, so many have said for so long outdoor transmission is rare and the young are mostly free of risk but it's also a sign furlough has perhaps disproportionately affected or afflicted the young.
The question is whether two months of "business" will save these jobs - maybe, maybe not.
I'm curious as to what proportion of the country are:
1) Immediately joining the rush for shops / beaches / takeaways / pubs
2) Cowering in their own homes
3) Going along pretty much as normal
My guess would be 10%/25%/65% assuming 3 means following govt guidelines most of the time with the occasional breach/use of own judgement.
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
She's not been fired like that. She's still a Labour MP.
Elected. You're big on that sort of thing aren't you.
If Starmer truly wanted to fire her he could withdraw the whip.
Splitting hairs. If you want me to clarify when I said "fired" I meant fired from her office of shadow education secretary. Which is still a dismissal. WIthdrawal of the whip is a separate issue.
I know what you mean. It's not a real dismissal. Not like organisations sacking people for causing significant harm to the organisation.
If a company sacks an employee for bringing the company into disrepute that doesn't really simply mean keeping them on at full salary but in a slightly lower profile role.
Yesterday RLB was a Labour MP. Today she still is. Same salary as she had yesterday. Same employer. Same organisation.
You specifically said that you fired someone for a Tweet. After you fired them did they still work for you? Did they still work in your organisation? Were they still claiming full salary and able to portray themselves still as a member of your organisation?
The Labour Party doesn’t pay her salary. She gets that just for being an MP. Starmer can’t kick her out of the Commons even if he withdrew the whip.
You are having a pointless argument about the semantics of the word “fired” with the wrong person. You clearly think she should have had the whip withdrawn as well as being fired from the shadow cabinet. That’s your prerogative. I have no dog in the fight as I am not a member nor a supporter of the Labour Party. He could have “fired” her in a very literal sense into the sun or out of a cannon for all I care.
Starmer can't kick her out of the Commons immediately but see for example Williamson: removing the whip removes them from the Commons eventually.
I'm saying she wasn't fired. Fired means removed from the organisation. Gone. She's not gone she is still Labour. Demoting someone isn't firing them.
Williamson had the whip removed. He was fired. Starmer hasn't removed the whip from a single anti-Semite yet.
Great. Thank you for your clarification on how you interpret the word “fired”. It is appreciated and noted. I will bear it in mind.
Surely even the Labour left as represented by the disgraced libeller Stephen Walker wouldn’t be that bloody stupid?
I mean at this moment, with the government on the floor, the Leader of the Opposition landing weekly blows, the national economy in chaos and the best chance of a breakthrough Labour have had in 25 years, surely they wouldn’t launch a challenge over the right of their members to be racist bastards if they choose?
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
You just can't hear the dog whistles. Those who needed to hear them, heard them.
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
What about the Papua New Guinea cannibalism remark?
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
She's not been fired like that. She's still a Labour MP.
Elected. You're big on that sort of thing aren't you.
If Starmer truly wanted to fire her he could withdraw the whip.
Splitting hairs. If you want me to clarify when I said "fired" I meant fired from her office of shadow education secretary. Which is still a dismissal. WIthdrawal of the whip is a separate issue.
I know what you mean. It's not a real dismissal. Not like organisations sacking people for causing significant harm to the organisation.
If a company sacks an employee for bringing the company into disrepute that doesn't really simply mean keeping them on at full salary but in a slightly lower profile role.
Yesterday RLB was a Labour MP. Today she still is. Same salary as she had yesterday. Same employer. Same organisation.
You specifically said that you fired someone for a Tweet. After you fired them did they still work for you? Did they still work in your organisation? Were they still claiming full salary and able to portray themselves still as a member of your organisation?
The Labour Party doesn’t pay her salary. She gets that just for being an MP. Starmer can’t kick her out of the Commons even if he withdrew the whip.
You are having a pointless argument about the semantics of the word “fired” with the wrong person. You clearly think she should have had the whip withdrawn as well as being fired from the shadow cabinet. That’s your prerogative. I have no dog in the fight as I am not a member nor a supporter of the Labour Party. He could have “fired” her in a very literal sense into the sun or out of a cannon for all I care.
Starmer can't kick her out of the Commons immediately but see for example Williamson: removing the whip removes them from the Commons eventually.
I'm saying she wasn't fired. Fired means removed from the organisation. Gone. She's not gone she is still Labour. Demoting someone isn't firing them.
Williamson had the whip removed. He was fired. Starmer hasn't removed the whip from a single anti-Semite yet.
Great. Thank you for your clarification on how you interpret the word “fired”. It is appreciated and noted. I will bear it in mind.
When you used it and said you fired someone from your organisation what did you mean?
Did you mean they were removed from your organisation? Or did you mean they were kept in your organisation in a different role?
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
What about the Papua New Guinea cannibalism remark?
I'm curious as to what proportion of the country are:
1) Immediately joining the rush for shops / beaches / takeaways / pubs
2) Cowering in their own homes
3) Going along pretty much as normal
Using a word like "cowering" tells me all I need to know in terms of any sense of objectivity.
There are clearly people who are still nervous about and careful about going out. In my part of East London, I'd say 10-20% are mask and/or glove wearers. They are predominately but not exclusively older people but some parents have put masks on their children.
The demise of the "night economy" has clearly had an impact. "She only comes out at night" as Mr Hall once opined but if she did now she'd find little or nothing open.
Yes, there are some queues at some shops - mainly shoe and clothes shops such as Primark which have no online presence. At supermarkets, social distancing and one way systems have collapsed despite repeated tannoy announcements.
As for "going along as normal", there are those who seem oblivious to what has happened and have gone on for the past 3 months with little or no change except an absence of work.
Those on furlough have time and money to enjoy life (I'm told) so are taking the advantage of good weather to head to the beach. As to how many of those coming off the train at Bournemouth had worn a face covering on the way, I suspect very few.
On London buses, I'd day 50% of the capacity (10 for single deck and 20 for double deck buses) aren't wearing masks.
To answer the question, 30-40-30 would be my guess.
As a ballpark figure the UK is much the same, though may not always be true as testing becomes more available. In the US it may shift the other direction as I understand that Federal funding for testing ends shortly.
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
What about the Papua New Guinea cannibalism remark?
Ah that. Yeah he was clearly talking about historical PNG (which absolutely was like that) but I can understand why modern PNG took offense and why he apologised for causing offence.
That's like referring to Greek meaning Ancient Greek rather than Modern Greece.
On Long-Bailey, I get the point that it was a very severe punishment for what she did, but sackings from cabinets are rarely about just treatment of the minister. On party interests, it was an easy decision.
But Starmer's decision to kneel in support of BLM now looks very smart, politically. That's the focus right know for many people who will be most upset about her sacking. Appearing woke, but brutally tough on anything that could possibly be twisted round and presented as association with anti-Semitism: much better than doing the opposite.
Surely even the Labour left as represented by the disgraced libeller Stephen Walker wouldn’t be that bloody stupid?
I mean at this moment, with the government on the floor, the Leader of the Opposition landing weekly blows, the national economy in chaos and the best chance of a breakthrough Labour have had in 25 years, surely they wouldn’t launch a challenge over the right of their members to be racist bastards if they choose?
I mean - surely not...
Well that being the case, the lunatic left will achieve all they ever wanted. Permanent Boris Johnson governance.
I still think locking down young and healthy people was a mistake in the first place.
I don't know how that could or would have worked. Define "young and healthy" for example.
It either had to be all or nothing - had we chosen nothing there would have been many more cases and, I believe, more deaths and we still would have had an economic hit.
There's a delusion among some that had we not locked down (and the process started a week before Johnson's announcement), we could have carried on normally and there'd have been no problems.
You won't normally hear this from me but I think in the light of what was happening, Johnson was right to lock the country down - had he done so a week earlier, the number of cases and deaths would have been lower.
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
She's not been fired like that. She's still a Labour MP.
Elected. You're big on that sort of thing aren't you.
If Starmer truly wanted to fire her he could withdraw the whip.
Splitting hairs. If you want me to clarify when I said "fired" I meant fired from her office of shadow education secretary. Which is still a dismissal. WIthdrawal of the whip is a separate issue.
I know what you mean. It's not a real dismissal. Not like organisations sacking people for causing significant harm to the organisation.
If a company sacks an employee for bringing the company into disrepute that doesn't really simply mean keeping them on at full salary but in a slightly lower profile role.
Yesterday RLB was a Labour MP. Today she still is. Same salary as she had yesterday. Same employer. Same organisation.
You specifically said that you fired someone for a Tweet. After you fired them did they still work for you? Did they still work in your organisation? Were they still claiming full salary and able to portray themselves still as a member of your organisation?
The Labour Party doesn’t pay her salary. She gets that just for being an MP. Starmer can’t kick her out of the Commons even if he withdrew the whip.
You are having a pointless argument about the semantics of the word “fired” with the wrong person. You clearly think she should have had the whip withdrawn as well as being fired from the shadow cabinet. That’s your prerogative. I have no dog in the fight as I am not a member nor a supporter of the Labour Party. He could have “fired” her in a very literal sense into the sun or out of a cannon for all I care.
Starmer can't kick her out of the Commons immediately but see for example Williamson: removing the whip removes them from the Commons eventually.
I'm saying she wasn't fired. Fired means removed from the organisation. Gone. She's not gone she is still Labour. Demoting someone isn't firing them.
Williamson had the whip removed. He was fired. Starmer hasn't removed the whip from a single anti-Semite yet.
Great. Thank you for your clarification on how you interpret the word “fired”. It is appreciated and noted. I will bear it in mind.
When you used it and said you fired someone from your organisation what did you mean?
Did you mean they were removed from your organisation? Or did you mean they were kept in your organisation in a different role?
This is a fascinating discussion on semantics but fruitless. It is perfectly possible to be dismissed/fired/sacked/canned from a role in an organisation for misconduct but stay with the same organisation. I have fired people from being board directors who have remained employed by the company. Any number of cabinet ministers and shadow cabinet ministers have been described as being fired or sacked (for example, google “Damian Green Sacked” or “Hilary Benn Fired”) but remain MPs. You clearly believe that she should have had the whip withdrawn. You may be correct. I don’t care.
I still think locking down young and healthy people was a mistake in the first place.
I don't know how that could or would have worked. Define "young and healthy" for example.
It either had to be all or nothing - had we chosen nothing there would have been many more cases and, I believe, more deaths and we still would have had an economic hit.
There's a delusion among some that had we not locked down (and the process started a week before Johnson's announcement), we could have carried on normally and there'd have been no problems.
You won't normally hear this from me but I think in the light of what was happening, Johnson was right to lock the country down - had he done so a week earlier, the number of cases and deaths would have been lower.
Hmm. Defining ‘young and healthy’ isn’t that hard is it?
If you are under 50 and have no underlying health conditions you are at low risk - just look at the stats.
What is far harder is preventing those groups mixing with higher risk groups - but that might not be beyond the wit of man.
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
It's quite clearly racist, it's absurd that you can't see it. Part of a pattern of using derogatory language about racial, religious and sexual minorities. No wonder 5000 Britain First members have joined the Tories since Johnson became leader.
The contrast being that Starmer put fans of antisemitic conspiracy theories in his Shadow Cabinet, and Boris didn't?
But he provides a good example himself of a Government infected by racism.
Examples?
He has referred to 'piccanninies' and 'letter boxes'.
Picanninies is inappropriate but it's clear from context he was attacking others racism. Like the language in the Germans Faulty Towers episode. Not appropriate today but the meaning at the time was clear.
Letterboxes is entirely appropriate language and has nothing to do with race.
It's quite clearly racist, it's absurd that you can't see it. Part of a pattern of using derogatory language about racial, religious and sexual minorities. No wonder 5000 Britain First members have joined the Tories since Johnson became leader.
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
Could a politician sacked from cabinet or shadow cabinet ever conceivably bring an unfair dismissal case that would have a good chance of succeeding?
Interesting question for the Cabinet. For the shadow Cabinet, probably not since they are (apart from the LOTO) unpaid.
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
Could a politician sacked from cabinet or shadow cabinet ever conceivably bring an unfair dismissal case that would have a good chance of succeeding?
Interesting question for the Cabinet. For the shadow Cabinet, probably not since they are (apart from the LOTO) unpaid.
You have to be an employee to bring an unfair dismissal claim. Ministers are officers not employees.
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
Could a politician sacked from cabinet or shadow cabinet ever conceivably bring an unfair dismissal case that would have a good chance of succeeding?
Interesting question for the Cabinet. For the shadow Cabinet, probably not since they are (apart from the LOTO) unpaid.
Hmm. Defining ‘young and healthy’ isn’t that hard is it?
If you are under 50 and have no underlying health conditions you are at low risk - just look at the stats.
What is far harder is preventing those groups mixing with higher risk groups - but that might not be beyond the wit of man.
First you would have had to insist everyone carried some form of identification to prove their age so plenty of work for the Police or should we have got the Army out to check ids to keep the oldies at home and safe?
The other little problem is people can be infectious without showing symptoms - as we are seeing in America at the moment, it's not those who are feverish and coughing who are spreading the inflection but those who look and feel perfectly well but have the virus and are spreading it.
Keeping people at home and reducing social contact to a minimum reduced the spread of the infection (the dreaded "R" number). That was the point of lockdown - it wasn't about penalising the fit and the healthy, it was about making sure those who had the virus (even if it was for them mild) didn't pass it on to those for whom it would be much more serious.
After rcs assured us that California residents are acting responsibly out in the street, I see the Cali Governor is attributing the surge in infections to gatherings at home, including family gettogethers, children’s play dates and birthday parties.
For the first time this season I'm not sure what result I want in the City game.
On the one hand if City drop points we win the title, OTOH I'd rather win it on the pitch and think winning it on the pitch at the Etihad would be great.
If City drop points I'll celebrate, but if they don't I won't be disappointed.
Hmm. Defining ‘young and healthy’ isn’t that hard is it?
If you are under 50 and have no underlying health conditions you are at low risk - just look at the stats.
What is far harder is preventing those groups mixing with higher risk groups - but that might not be beyond the wit of man.
First you would have had to insist everyone carried some form of identification to prove their age so plenty of work for the Police or should we have got the Army out to check ids to keep the oldies at home and safe?
The other little problem is people can be infectious without showing symptoms - as we are seeing in America at the moment, it's not those who are feverish and coughing who are spreading the inflection but those who look and feel perfectly well but have the virus and are spreading it.
Keeping people at home and reducing social contact to a minimum reduced the spread of the infection (the dreaded "R" number). That was the point of lockdown - it wasn't about penalising the fit and the healthy, it was about making sure those who had the virus (even if it was for them mild) didn't pass it on to those for whom it would be much more serious.
Yes, I understand the point of it! Given that governments worldwide were completely shell shocked there was little they could do but tend to overcautiousness.
But, it’s not the best instrument for the future. Local lockdowns, mass testing and some form of risk segmentation is the way forward.
We seem capable of awarding driving licences based on risk profiles, why not this? Most people observe the law.
After rcs assured us that California residents are acting responsibly out in the street, I see the Cali Governor is attributing the surge in infections to gatherings at home, including family gettogethers, children’s play dates and birthday parties.
Far be it for me to agree with Owen Jones, or go into bat for Rebecca Long-Bailey, but I’m inclined to agree.
I can only assume he was looking for an excuse to get rid of her.
She wasn’t fired for retweeting the article per se. She was fired because of the damage that keeping her would cause to the Labour Party. That’s a perfectly legitimate reason for firing anyone. If one of my employees retweeted something that might cause my organisation significant harm then dismissal would be an option. I fired someone for a twitter post myself once and have advised on several FB related dismissals that resulted in damage to an employer’s reputation.
Could a politician sacked from cabinet or shadow cabinet ever conceivably bring an unfair dismissal case that would have a good chance of succeeding?
Interesting question for the Cabinet. For the shadow Cabinet, probably not since they are (apart from the LOTO) unpaid.
I think my favourite moment in the entire Turley case was when a barrister told the judge nobody was stupid enough to believe a word Skwawkbox said, because it was so transparently a far left propaganda site.
The joke being it was the defence counsel, trying to persuade the judge that Walker’s comments were not damaging to Turley.
The judge did not seem to be entirely convinced by this argument...
It would be nice to have a competent Shadow Education Sec, perhaps somebody who was a teacher would be a good start
Ydoethur's got his hand up!
Actually, I wouldn’t necessarily agree. Being a good minister is very different from being a good teacher.
The best education secretary of the last 40 years was John McGregor. Because although he knew little about education he was willing to learn.
If Gove and Morgan were the worst by a distance, then Estelle Morris is third. Because however well meaning, she was also incompetent.
And she was a teacher.
In all fairness to Estelle, she eventually realised she was a non-swimmer in the deep end.
My late Father's least favourite was Kenneth Baker, he of the Baker, or Inset day. My father once commented that 'Baker' days were commonly referred to at his school as 'B' days (bidets). They served a function, but no one was quite sure how to use them.
yeah - if you're saying that looks like austin powers, get off twitter, m8, and get outside. take some time off.
THE FLAG IS BACK TO FRONT
The union flag being flown upside down used to be a maritime distress signal. Fairly apt for Bozo. Ian Paisley would have had something to say about it!
I think it wouldn't be a shock if Biden won Iowa (or even Ohio). I think Texas and Georgia are a stretch as I don't quite regard them as true swing states.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) although he's probably very unlikely to beat Trump by more than 6-8%.
On some level it's hard to predict efficiency of vote distribution. I was surprised how good Obama's was in 2012 for example and how close he came to retaining North Carolina (as well as retaining Florida).
Comments
I'm saying she wasn't fired. Fired means removed from the organisation. Gone. She's not gone she is still Labour. Demoting someone isn't firing them.
Williamson had the whip removed. He was fired. Starmer hasn't removed the whip from a single anti-Semite yet.
https://twitter.com/skwawkbox/status/1276204792050790405
Our culture is creating a flotsam of sexual no-hopers — with disastrous consequences
BY MARY HARRINGTON"
https://unherd.com/2020/06/incels-could-become-the-new-vikings/
I mean at this moment, with the government on the floor, the Leader of the Opposition landing weekly blows, the national economy in chaos and the best chance of a breakthrough Labour have had in 25 years, surely they wouldn’t launch a challenge over the right of their members to be racist bastards if they choose?
I mean - surely not...
Did you mean they were removed from your organisation?
Or did you mean they were kept in your organisation in a different role?
The collective stupidity of many people in this country beggars belief.
There are clearly people who are still nervous about and careful about going out. In my part of East London, I'd say 10-20% are mask and/or glove wearers. They are predominately but not exclusively older people but some parents have put masks on their children.
The demise of the "night economy" has clearly had an impact. "She only comes out at night" as Mr Hall once opined but if she did now she'd find little or nothing open.
Yes, there are some queues at some shops - mainly shoe and clothes shops such as Primark which have no online presence. At supermarkets, social distancing and one way systems have collapsed despite repeated tannoy announcements.
As for "going along as normal", there are those who seem oblivious to what has happened and have gone on for the past 3 months with little or no change except an absence of work.
Those on furlough have time and money to enjoy life (I'm told) so are taking the advantage of good weather to head to the beach. As to how many of those coming off the train at Bournemouth had worn a face covering on the way, I suspect very few.
On London buses, I'd day 50% of the capacity (10 for single deck and 20 for double deck buses) aren't wearing masks.
To answer the question, 30-40-30 would be my guess.
Oh, sorry, you said ‘abroad?’
That's like referring to Greek meaning Ancient Greek rather than Modern Greece.
But Starmer's decision to kneel in support of BLM now looks very smart, politically. That's the focus right know for many people who will be most upset about her sacking. Appearing woke, but brutally tough on anything that could possibly be twisted round and presented as association with anti-Semitism: much better than doing the opposite.
It either had to be all or nothing - had we chosen nothing there would have been many more cases and, I believe, more deaths and we still would have had an economic hit.
There's a delusion among some that had we not locked down (and the process started a week before Johnson's announcement), we could have carried on normally and there'd have been no problems.
You won't normally hear this from me but I think in the light of what was happening, Johnson was right to lock the country down - had he done so a week earlier, the number of cases and deaths would have been lower.
* Lavery's definition of coal miner might not be your's.
If you are under 50 and have no underlying health conditions you are at low risk - just look at the stats.
What is far harder is preventing those groups mixing with higher risk groups - but that might not be beyond the wit of man.
Because I have NO IDEA.
Forgotten I hadn't done that. More interesting developments from Surrey this evening:
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2020-06-25/spelthorne-council-gives-wework-4.5m-rent-holiday-as-covid-crunch-hits
Ian Harvey resigned before he would likely have been dismissed as Council leader this evening.
The other little problem is people can be infectious without showing symptoms - as we are seeing in America at the moment, it's not those who are feverish and coughing who are spreading the inflection but those who look and feel perfectly well but have the virus and are spreading it.
Keeping people at home and reducing social contact to a minimum reduced the spread of the infection (the dreaded "R" number). That was the point of lockdown - it wasn't about penalising the fit and the healthy, it was about making sure those who had the virus (even if it was for them mild) didn't pass it on to those for whom it would be much more serious.
On the one hand if City drop points we win the title, OTOH I'd rather win it on the pitch and think winning it on the pitch at the Etihad would be great.
If City drop points I'll celebrate, but if they don't I won't be disappointed.
But, it’s not the best instrument for the future. Local lockdowns, mass testing and some form of risk segmentation is the way forward.
We seem capable of awarding driving licences based on risk profiles, why not this? Most people observe the law.
The best education secretary of the last 40 years was John McGregor. Because although he knew little about education he was willing to learn.
If Gove and Morgan were the worst by a distance, then Estelle Morris is third. Because however well meaning, she was also incompetent.
And she was a teacher.
The Skawkbox has a 100% rating on Newsguard...
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/06/22/newsguard-renews-skwawkboxs-100-trustworthiness-rating/
The joke being it was the defence counsel, trying to persuade the judge that Walker’s comments were not damaging to Turley.
The judge did not seem to be entirely convinced by this argument...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10689115/Anti-racism-MP-under-fire-after-posing-with-son-blacked-up-to-look-like-Michael-Jackson.html
(I’d be very surprised indeed if he’d been on Epstein’s private jet.)
been rescinded due to a conflict of interest.
And if people are at home they may not have any close contacts besides the person they caught it from.
My late Father's least favourite was Kenneth Baker, he of the Baker, or Inset day. My father once commented that 'Baker' days were commonly referred to at his school as 'B' days (bidets). They served a function, but no one was quite sure how to use them.
NEW THREAD
HINT: it's not.
I think the absolute most Biden can get is around 413 EVs (including Texas and Georgia) and the most likely scenario as of now is Biden winning up to 335 EVs (similar to Obama in 2012) although he's probably very unlikely to beat Trump by more than 6-8%.
On some level it's hard to predict efficiency of vote distribution. I was surprised how good Obama's was in 2012 for example and how close he came to retaining North Carolina (as well as retaining Florida).