What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
snip.
Yes, that's my reading. A pregnant British citizen can go to Belfast, have the kid, and then the kid gets an EU passport.
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
Of course, the Brexiters on PB keep telling us the EU won't survive for long ... tdhere's no point in the bairn having an EU passport if mummy and daddy still have to queue in the non-EU channel. Could be worth it once it becomes 16 or so, but the wean might not be interested in anything that makes the EU passport useful.
I've not seen many Leavers on PB predicting the imminent demise of the EU.
SeanT, Eadric, Mysticrose, LadyG and Byronic do so fairly regularly.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
It could also be argued that England is a union of former kingdoms - each of which theoretically could revert to being separate countries. Many in Cornwall claim not to be English.
Dividing England? Oh no! Have Mercia, Justin!
Great pun;
Mercia, of which Eadric, liberator of the City of Hereford, was king.
I could have Penda novel about that.
You are on fire tonight!
Really? *Looks round in alarm*
Oh, phew, you meant metaphorically.
Or someone has set fire to your coat. At long last.
You can watch it as an attack on "Woke" or as a piss-take of how a gammon will typically attack "Woke".
The latter is slightly more difficult to detect but I am pleased to report I managed it.
It isn't the latter. He is most definitely anti-Woke, both the character and the writers behind it. It is a recurring theme in his videos and his stand-up show, both Tom Walker and Andrew Doyle are left wing anti-wokers and have been for years.
Yes, Pie hates Woke, as anyone who watches him regularly well knows. Kinabalu hasn't a clue
My message is sometimes pitched just beyond the grasp of all but those I wish to reach.
Wait a minute, when Labour Corbynites like Diane Abbott were going on about extra funding for 10,000 more police officers they were actually supporting an injust society?
I'm no expert, but from what I've read about America, "defunding the police" would turn it into something a lot more like our own police force.
I'm in no way minimising the everyday racism that a lot of black people in this country face when dealing with the police, but a more consent based police force would be a major victory for BLM in the US.
They are disappointed in Starmer over the stance on BLM UK, hence their following tweets mentioning UK events. They are talking about BLM UK's call for defunding the police here, not in the US.
Yes - I realise. I'm suggesting that in the US, what is meant by defunding isn't that radical.
Here it's a much more extreme proposal, which even most Labour left wingers wouldn't consider.
Just this morning I was being mocked for saying the BLM were marxist, anti semitic nutters and that Keir Starmer would regret adopting their pose for a photo op...
A few hours later he cant distance himself far away enough from them, and is getting slapped on the back by Nigel Farage for his stance on racism!!
Presciently saying things that were obviously true and which led to a screeching U-turn from LOTO within a day?
You clearly know nothing about politics, isam
Well, yes
Now he's got left wingers and black people attacking him, whilst Nigel Farage is onside.. and challenging someone just out of intensive care to a push up competition!
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
snip.
Yes, that's my reading. A pregnant British citizen can go to Belfast, have the kid, and then the kid gets an EU passport.
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
Of course, the Brexiters on PB keep telling us the EU won't survive for long ... tdhere's no point in the bairn having an EU passport if mummy and daddy still have to queue in the non-EU channel. Could be worth it once it becomes 16 or so, but the wean might not be interested in anything that makes the EU passport useful.
I've not seen many Leavers on PB predicting the imminent demise of the EU.
SeanT, Eadric, Mysticrose, LadyG and Byronic do so fairly regularly.
Shocking to see such lies posted here.
Byronic was adamant he was a remainer.
The EU is not what it once was.
I think that's very good news for the EU - the unstoppable train of hubris is over. Nonetheless there are questions. My money is all with the EU though - 99% chance of it being here in 10 years. It was never seriously under threat though.
Incidentally a prediction is pretty unlikely to be a lie, and certainly so here.
What are the EU rights of British babies being born recently, now, and in the near future?
If a baby was born in the UK before Brexit day, Jan 31, when we were still part of the EU, is that baby entitled to an EU passport, given that it was, at the moment of birth, a citizen in an EU country? If not, how does the law work?
What about a British baby born this year, or indeed after the end of the transition, in an EU country? Are they EU citizens by birth?
My understanding is that any such rights of UK-born children (with the very important exception of those born in NI) will - effectively - evaporate, being destroyed by the UK Government in a deliberate act of policy.
OK, and what about British kids being born now and in the future in rEU? They become EU citizens, I imagine?
My point is I can see a lot of British parents deciding to have kids in NI or Ireland so they get the passport.
Time to invest in private hospitals with good antenatal units in Belfast.
Interesting thought - and makes a change from the previous traffic in expectant ladies.
But residency is sometimes the qualification when it comes to dealing with different parts of the UK (as the UK does not recognise e.g. English or Scottish nationality per se). This was and is the case for determining support (or lack of) for students, for instance.
I've just checked the Irish State website. A child born in Ireland or NI with a British parent automatically becomes an Irish citizen (at the moment, perhaps this will change when Brexit is entirely done - though they don't mention it) - and therefore also an EU citizen
So if you are really keen to get an EU passport for your kid, you should hop on the ferry to Belfast
And put in the application asap when it becomes eligible for a passport.
I was under the impression that dual nationality was guaranteed under the GFA, so it should still last under Brexit, given that the Brexit arrangements sort of respects it under Mr Johnson's policy. But I don't know what would happen if Mr Johnson decided to renege on the GFA and bring NI back fully into the UK, eliminating dual nationality. I imagine anyone with a passport already would be OK, but otherwise ... no doubt soneone else will correct us if needed.
There's also a category not needing special place of birth as they get an Irish passport anyway- those with an Irish grandparent or parent IIRC. (So not much hope of making a profit there.) But DYOR.
snip.
Yes, that's my reading. A pregnant British citizen can go to Belfast, have the kid, and then the kid gets an EU passport.
I imagine LOTS of people will rather like the idea of this
Of course, the Brexiters on PB keep telling us the EU won't survive for long ... tdhere's no point in the bairn having an EU passport if mummy and daddy still have to queue in the non-EU channel. Could be worth it once it becomes 16 or so, but the wean might not be interested in anything that makes the EU passport useful.
I've not seen many Leavers on PB predicting the imminent demise of the EU.
SeanT, Eadric, Mysticrose, LadyG and Byronic do so fairly regularly.
Shocking to see such lies posted here.
Byronic was adamant he was a remainer.
Which lies are you referring to - the ones Byronic told, or the alleged ones about him?
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
Stuck by the clear guidance from a real politician and not had arseholes testing their eyesight etc which caused millions to ignore it all and runabout all over the country.
There might be a lot in that. It was to excuse Dominic Cummings that advice shifted to use your common sense rather than follow the rules.
That is the perception. It is hard to draw any other conclusion.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
That noted - isn’t it just a bit surprising that he wasn’t involved at some level in such a high profile, sensitive and politically charged case?
I would have thought this is one you would want your most senior figures to consider.
However, the truth seems to be that the CPS is an utterly dysfunctional organisation. No DPP has ever run it successfully, and Starmer did an awful lot better than most of his predecessors.
You can watch it as an attack on "Woke" or as a piss-take of how a gammon will typically attack "Woke".
The latter is slightly more difficult to detect but I am pleased to report I managed it.
It isn't the latter. He is most definitely anti-Woke, both the character and the writers behind it. It is a recurring theme in his videos and his stand-up show, both Tom Walker and Andrew Doyle are left wing anti-wokers and have been for years.
Yes I know. I was making the best of it.
It was well delivered but (to me) yawningly predictable.
It's odd how you find so many opinions contrary to yours "yawningly predictable".
Jonathan Pie is a mixed bag. That rant was quite good, but definitely not his best.
He can be poor, equally, when he's really on form, he can be rather exhilarating.
And now, that's it. The poor blind Zagorian Olms cannot wait. I must go.
You're right. It is odd and it's not good. To find nothing new in anything said by the unwokerati is a sign of being jaded or of madness. I'm hoping it's the former.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Yes I do.
Because I believe free trade is the right thing to do in principle.
Thanks. So you think Britain should enter into free trade agreements regardless of whether they help Britain.
What is the principle behind them which you think so important?
Economically it is Ricardian economics. I believe true free trade helps all parties.
Philosophically I believe in free trade for the same reason as I believe in free markets and not a command economy. I believe that free people, in a free society trading freely in a free market are able to make better choices than bureaucrats trying to cherrypick winners and losers.
If the EU were simply a free trade organisation I would wholeheartedly support our membership. In the past I used to.
Presumably you agree with the US Anti-Trust laws and equivalents elsewhere?
"Defunding the police" is a very maladroit way of saying you want to restructure, reorient and demilitarize law enforcement.
Reforms such as in Camden, New Jersey are what BLM is advocating NOT zero budget. Would be better IF they said that, instead of a misleading slogan that does NOT test well in polls or focus groups.
That said, it's clear that majority of American public is now supporting BLM to some degree. One sign of this, is that cops who flaunt their racism are getting fired right and left from sea to shining sea.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Looking good. There is no way Biden is going allow himself to lose Penn.
Personally, I think Pennsylvania is the hardest of the Midwest states for the Dems to regain, and Wisconsin the easiest. (This is based solely on state level approval for President Trump.)
Looking good. There is no way Biden is going allow himself to lose Penn.
Personally, I think Pennsylvania is the hardest of the Midwest states for the Dems to regain, and Wisconsin the easiest. (This is based solely on state level approval for President Trump.)
Michigan looks the easiest to me from polling data.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
"Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile"
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
I think you're being wildly unfair here. Farage has really no history of racism.
This whole 'black lives matter' thing is horribly racist anyway. Skin colour doesn't matter. It never has and it never will. Sorry to pop you bubble.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
In terms of voteshare though the Tories are virtually unchanged from the 44% they got at GE19 on 44%.
All the movement since GE19 has been LD to Labour and while there is a possibility the Tories could lose their majority at the next general election, they would still have more seats than Labour, the SNP and LDs combined
Secretary of State for Scotland Alister Jack losing his seat there; SLDs wiped out; SCons halving their seats from 6 to 3; and one sole SLab MP. And HY thinks this is great!
You do realise the country extends beyond your region don't you?
Your state might extend north of the Tweed, but my country does not extend south of it.
Your country is the United Kingdom as per the 2014 referendum.
The United Kingdom is a political union of three countries and part of a fourth country. The UK is a state, not a country. That did not change in 2014.
For a self identified English Nationalist, Phil's awfy keen on the UK. Today's obviously an English Regionalist day for him.
I'm not keen on the UK, but I am keen on accuracy.
The UK is a country under international law and ISO definitions whether I want it to be or not.
I aware enough to realise that just because I wish something were different doesn't make it so - are you?
I'd probably rein back on the wee, snidey region shite if I didn't want to be thought of as an English Regionalist.
Scotland is a region of the UK, just as the North West of England is. Its a comparable sized region.
Scotland is also a country of the UK, but it is not a comparable sized country to England.
That is why Scotland should be independent in my eyes. Because the UK is not, nor can it be, a union of equal partners.
Do you disagree with any of that, or my logical conclusion?
It could also be argued that England is a union of former kingdoms - each of which theoretically could revert to being separate countries. Many in Cornwall claim not to be English.
Dividing England? Oh no! Have Mercia, Justin!
Great pun;
Mercia, of which Eadric, liberator of the City of Hereford, was king.
I could have Penda novel about that.
You are on fire tonight!
Really? *Looks round in alarm*
Oh, phew, you meant metaphorically.
Mercia and Penda were awesome puns. Sometimes the burning arrows sail over the target to oblivion or fall to the floor. Those two were straight and true.
Seems the social media companies been busy today with the ban hammer...2000 sub reddits including The_Donald have got banned from reddit, Trump"s twitch account has gone.
"The best person for the job" is conveniently ignored because Brexit. Of course, hypocrisy is the Brexiteer art.
The government is seeking to improve the country via Brexit.
Whether someone is a Brexiteer or Remainer should be irrelevant. They should however be able to answer the question "in which ways can the UK be improved post-Brexit".
If their answer is a @Scott_xP style reply of "it can't, Brexit is a bloody stupid idea" then they're not the best person for the job.
Remainers who see Brexit as something that needs to be gone through because it was voted for are going to see it as a damage limitation exercise. There is no other sensible way to do Brexit. But if you voted Leave because you think it a Good Thing in a way that makes sense to you, you're won't accept damage limitation. You didn't vote for that and exclude Remainers from having anything to do with it.
The end result is a more extreme and an even more partisan and damaging Brexit. It's a dilemma for both parties in their different ways.
Well precisely. Brexit is not a damage limitation exercise, it is an opportunity.
The Civil Servants should be looking to serve the government implement Brexit as an opportunity. If they're incapable of doing so, if they're incapable of looking beyond "damage limitation" then they're regrettably incapable of doing their jobs. They're no longer the "best person for the job".
The Civil Service needs to adapt to implement what the public have voted for, not look to limit it.
Perhaps government ministers could spell out what these “opportunities” actually are, beyond the frankly risible one of being able to buy Tim Tams, something which I can now do on Amazon, as it happens.
They have done, for half a decade at least now.
Now they need the Civil Service on side to implement the opportunities. If the Civil Service doesn't want to do so then that is an issue n'est-ce pas?
Name the specific policies which the government is now implementing post-Brexit which it could not do beforehand and which will improve Britain and, for each policy, what that improvement will be.
They're generally not being implemented yet because we're still in transition but seeking our own trade agreements would be one.
Yes those. I believe they're the right thing to do even with that assessment. Because I think those assessments are flawed but its impossible to prove it, just like the whole Brexit debate.
I want to make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Even if the assessment is correct (I understand you think it incorrect, though am unclear why you think so), the assessment that a trade deal with NZ may shrink the U.K. economy slightly, you still think it is the right thing to do?
Yes?
If so, why?
Why would you think it the right thing to do to enter into a trade agreement which may shrink the U.K. economy?
Yes I do.
Because I believe free trade is the right thing to do in principle.
Thanks. So you think Britain should enter into free trade agreements regardless of whether they help Britain.
What is the principle behind them which you think so important?
Economically it is Ricardian economics. I believe true free trade helps all parties.
Philosophically I believe in free trade for the same reason as I believe in free markets and not a command economy. I believe that free people, in a free society trading freely in a free market are able to make better choices than bureaucrats trying to cherrypick winners and losers.
If the EU were simply a free trade organisation I would wholeheartedly support our membership. In the past I used to.
Presumably you agree with the US Anti-Trust laws and equivalents elsewhere?
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
I hear you, LadyG, agree with you on both counts. Note that Georgia also used to feature the Confederate flag on its state flag (you can see it on old "Matlock" reruns) but it was removed in 2001.
Why was it put on these state flags? Partly our of pride of tradition, but mostly and chiefly to send the message loud and clear: this is White man's country, boy, and don't you ever forget it!
Well, more and more and more and more folks are saying: to hell with that shit!!!
We're judging the past by the present again. These symbols were probably granted to the southern states in an attempt to smoothe over relations after what had been an exhausting and extremely bitter war.
You don;t completely humiliate those you defeat if you want them to be your fellow citizens again. Which of course the North did.
Many confederate soldiers fought under that flag because it was the flag of their country, not because it was 'pro-slavery'. Slavery wasn;t an issue as they owned no slaves.
I'm not saying these flags should be flown now, but why they were around until recently was at least explainable.
The Missisipi flag was adopted decades after the end of the Civil War.
The stars and bars also wasn't the flag of the Confederacy, it was the battle ensign of the Army of North Virginia.
The incorporation of the stars and bars into the Mississippi flag was unequivocally about sending a message to the black population that they were still subjugated.
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
I mean isam's statement isn't incorrect.
What's with the off topic flagging?
There's been a lot of it lately. Someone is using it as a dislike button.
Someone marked a whole conversation about RLB's antisemitism as Off Topic in a thread with a topic of RLB getting sacked for antisemitism.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
"Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile"
That's what I said wasn't it?
I think Starmer's defence is that 'he was present, but not involved'.
That's the line Corbyn used for everything, and it worked out great for him...
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
I mean isam's statement isn't incorrect.
What's with the off topic flagging?
There's been a lot of it lately. Someone is using it as a dislike button.
Someone marked a whole conversation about RLB's antisemitism as Off Topic in a thread with a topic of RLB getting sacked for antisemitism.
It was a reply to another comment that was also off topic, but that wasn't flagged. I wonder why? Perhaps it's because you can't off topic your own post.
I know when quoted in newspapers all MPs become 'senior' or 'key', but is Mhairi Black really a 'Senior Nat MP'? I guess she holds a post, but even so.
Given she was so young when elected, it makes me wonder if anyone has in their career been both the baby of the house and father of the house
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Its not their pose.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Leicester faces a further two weeks of lockdown to fight a local flare-up of coronavirus that has prompted "concern" from the Prime Minister.
The latest data shows the city has an unusually high number of cases, so is likely to be exempted from the easing of lockdown across England on July 4.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, will make a statement about the city after 9pm this evening, but an extension to the closure of pubs and restaurants there now looks likely.
Sir Peter Soulsby, the Mayor of Leicester, said the Government was still "minded to extend the current level of restrictions for two weeks" after speaking to the Health Secretary today.
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
I hear you, LadyG, agree with you on both counts. Note that Georgia also used to feature the Confederate flag on its state flag (you can see it on old "Matlock" reruns) but it was removed in 2001.
Why was it put on these state flags? Partly our of pride of tradition, but mostly and chiefly to send the message loud and clear: this is White man's country, boy, and don't you ever forget it!
Well, more and more and more and more folks are saying: to hell with that shit!!!
We're judging the past by the present again. These symbols were probably granted to the southern states in an attempt to smoothe over relations after what had been an exhausting and extremely bitter war.
You don;t completely humiliate those you defeat if you want them to be your fellow citizens again. Which of course the North did.
Many confederate soldiers fought under that flag because it was the flag of their country, not because it was 'pro-slavery'. Slavery wasn;t an issue as they owned no slaves.
I'm not saying these flags should be flown now, but why they were around until recently was at least explainable.
The Missisipi flag was adopted decades after the end of the Civil War.
The stars and bars also wasn't the flag of the Confederacy, it was the battle ensign of the Army of North Virginia.
The incorporation of the stars and bars into the Mississippi flag was unequivocally about sending a message to the black population that they were still subjugated.
If the South wasn't fighting for slavery, why did Alexander Stephens, The Vice President of the Confederacy think it was?
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Its not their pose.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
Oh no, of course not! No one thinks of BLM when people take the knee
"My local Asda has all the lockdown features even the most fanatical virus paranoid could want: stickers, signs, screens, one-way lanes – you name it. No-one, not even the staff, now takes the slightest notice and there is zero enforcement."
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
"Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile"
That's what I said wasn't it?
I think Starmer's defence is that 'he was present, but not involved'.
That's the line Corbyn used for everything, and it worked out great for him...
I wonder what the excuse was when the CPS was involved in deciding not to prosecute certain other crimes?
Looking good. There is no way Biden is going allow himself to lose Penn.
Personally, I think Pennsylvania is the hardest of the Midwest states for the Dems to regain, and Wisconsin the easiest. (This is based solely on state level approval for President Trump.)
Michigan looks the easiest to me from polling data.
Yet the polls I see show Biden piling up votes where he doesn't need them - in the North East and the West. In the South, he's managed a very small swing on 2016 while in the Midwest Trump is doing better than 2016.
It might be Pennsylvania and Arizona will go to the Democrats and the GOP will pick up Minnesota - I don't know but I simply don't see this huge Democrat landslide.
I presume no one is taking the Trafalgar Poll in Wisconsin seriously - it shows Trump 0.9% ahead of Biden.
"My local Asda has all the lockdown features even the most fanatical virus paranoid could want: stickers, signs, screens, one-way lanes – you name it. No-one, not even the staff, now takes the slightest notice and there is zero enforcement."
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
"Defunding the police" is a very maladroit way of saying you want to restructure, reorient and demilitarize law enforcement.
Reforms such as in Camden, New Jersey are what BLM is advocating NOT zero budget. Would be better IF they said that, instead of a misleading slogan that does NOT test well in polls or focus groups.
Quite. If it is not unreasonable to take another meaning from the phrase then people cannot reasonably express annoyance if people are unclear about what it is supposed to mean. I assume 'reform the police' is not strong enough for some, the fear being you get some real milquetoaste reform instead, but the answer isn't come up with a slogan you have to explain in detail every time.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
"Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile"
That's what I said wasn't it?
I think Starmer's defence is that 'he was present, but not involved'.
That's the line Corbyn used for everything, and it worked out great for him...
I wonder what the excuse was when the CPS was involved in deciding not to prosecute certain other crimes?
Did the rapes in Rotherham get as far as the CPS, or was that shut down by the local bill and the council?
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
Leicester faces a further two weeks of lockdown to fight a local flare-up of coronavirus that has prompted "concern" from the Prime Minister.
The latest data shows the city has an unusually high number of cases, so is likely to be exempted from the easing of lockdown across England on July 4.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, will make a statement about the city after 9pm this evening, but an extension to the closure of pubs and restaurants there now looks likely.
Sir Peter Soulsby, the Mayor of Leicester, said the Government was still "minded to extend the current level of restrictions for two weeks" after speaking to the Health Secretary today.
Given the problems Leicester, Liverpool, London and Wales have had its not been the best of adverts for Labour government.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Of course England has several such metropolitan areas. But I am not sure what was being different as early as April to explain such a rapid tail-off.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Its not their pose.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
Oh no, of course not! No one thinks of BLM when people take the knee
Absolutely 100% they don't.
People don't think "of Black Lives Matter" [the organisation] when people take the knee.
People think that "black lives matter" [the principle] when people take the knee.
"Defunding the police" is a very maladroit way of saying you want to restructure, reorient and demilitarize law enforcement.
Reforms such as in Camden, New Jersey are what BLM is advocating NOT zero budget. Would be better IF they said that, instead of a misleading slogan that does NOT test well in polls or focus groups.
Quite. If it is not unreasonable to take another meaning from the phrase then people cannot reasonably express annoyance if people are unclear about what it is supposed to mean. I assume 'reform the police' is not strong enough for some, the fear being you get some real milquetoaste reform instead, but the answer isn't come up with a slogan you have to explain in detail every time.
Considering that black people are being slaughtered at an alarming rate in every large American city going by other black people, would it not make more sense to defund the criminals instead?
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Its not their pose.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
Oh no, of course not! No one thinks of BLM when people take the knee
Absolutely 100% they don't.
People don't think "of Black Lives Matter" [the organisation] when people take the knee.
People think that "black lives matter" [the principle] when people take the knee.
Yes. Much as very large numbers of people are fans of looking after the environment, but wouldn't vote Green in a million years.
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
I think you’re confusing the book with the 1962 film, which was not really related to it and unlike the book is more or less forgotten.
The book ends very differently.
‘Our hopes all centre here now. It seems unlikely anything will come of Torrance’s neo-feudal plan although his settlements still exist with the inhabitants leading, so we hear, lives of misery and squalor behind their stockades. There are not so many of them as there were, though: Ivan frequently reports another has been overrun and the triffids surrounding it have dispersed to join other sieges. So we must regard the task ahead as ours alone. We think now that we can see the way, but there is still a lot of work and research to be done before the day when we, or our children, or their children, will cross the narrow straits on the great crusade to drive the triffids back and back with ceaseless destruction until we have wiped the last one of them from the face of the land they have usurped.’
"Defunding the police" is a very maladroit way of saying you want to restructure, reorient and demilitarize law enforcement.
Reforms such as in Camden, New Jersey are what BLM is advocating NOT zero budget. Would be better IF they said that, instead of a misleading slogan that does NOT test well in polls or focus groups.
Quite. If it is not unreasonable to take another meaning from the phrase then people cannot reasonably express annoyance if people are unclear about what it is supposed to mean. I assume 'reform the police' is not strong enough for some, the fear being you get some real milquetoaste reform instead, but the answer isn't come up with a slogan you have to explain in detail every time.
Considering that black people are being slaughtered at an alarming rate in every large American city going by other black people, would it not make more sense to defund the criminals instead?
i wasnt commenting on efficacy of the policy, merely the pointlessness of complaining about miscommunication arising from a shitty slogan.
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Its not their pose.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
Oh no, of course not! No one thinks of BLM when people take the knee
Absolutely 100% they don't.
People don't think "of Black Lives Matter" [the organisation] when people take the knee.
People think that "black lives matter" [the principle] when people take the knee.
Yes. Much as very large numbers of people are fans of looking after the environment, but wouldn't vote Green in a million years.
Leicester faces a further two weeks of lockdown to fight a local flare-up of coronavirus that has prompted "concern" from the Prime Minister.
The latest data shows the city has an unusually high number of cases, so is likely to be exempted from the easing of lockdown across England on July 4.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, will make a statement about the city after 9pm this evening, but an extension to the closure of pubs and restaurants there now looks likely.
Sir Peter Soulsby, the Mayor of Leicester, said the Government was still "minded to extend the current level of restrictions for two weeks" after speaking to the Health Secretary today.
Given the problems Leicester, Liverpool, London and Wales have had its not been the best of adverts for Labour government.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
I think you will find the Romans were there first with apartment blocks. 9 stories were not unheard of.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
Sorry - was thinking of 1600s so should have put 17th century. Up to 5-7 storeys at that time I believe.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Of course England has several such metropolitan areas. But I am not sure what was being different as early as April to explain such a rapid tail-off.
Blimey, he was in charge of the CPS when they decided not to prosecute Jim'll Fix It?
You obviously didn't read it, no surprise there then.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
"Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile"
That's what I said wasn't it?
I think Starmer's defence is that 'he was present, but not involved'.
That's the line Corbyn used for everything, and it worked out great for him...
I wonder what the excuse was when the CPS was involved in deciding not to prosecute certain other crimes?
Did the rapes in Rotherham get as far as the CPS, or was that shut down by the local bill and the council?
It came out in the various enquiries (and elsewhere) that the situation was known from on the ground in the various agencies, up to MPs and ministers. That is why no-one in the system has been punished. Too many heads would roll.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Of course England has several such metropolitan areas. But I am not sure what was being different as early as April to explain such a rapid tail-off.
Leicester faces a further two weeks of lockdown to fight a local flare-up of coronavirus that has prompted "concern" from the Prime Minister.
The latest data shows the city has an unusually high number of cases, so is likely to be exempted from the easing of lockdown across England on July 4.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, will make a statement about the city after 9pm this evening, but an extension to the closure of pubs and restaurants there now looks likely.
Sir Peter Soulsby, the Mayor of Leicester, said the Government was still "minded to extend the current level of restrictions for two weeks" after speaking to the Health Secretary today.
Given the problems Leicester, Liverpool, London and Wales have had its not been the best of adverts for Labour government.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
I think you will find the Romans were there first with apartment blocks. 9 stories were not unheard of.
Indeed. Edinburgh got up to 14 in the old days, in the 18th/19th centuries (perhaps on the downhill side given the crag and tail topography, much les on the street frontage).
Off topic - just heard the news that the Mississippi Legislature has voted to remove the Confederate battle flag from the canton of the MS state flag. The bill passed in the state house 9-23 and in the state senate 37-14, and the governor has already said he will sign it into law.
The new flag design, which will be chosen by a special state commission and include the words "In God We Trust" will be submitted to Mississippi voters for approval in a referendum on this November's general election.
Clearly this vote will be a major hurdle; note that in 2001 a state voter referendum voted 2 to 1 for keeping the Confederate Flag on the state flag.
But as someone once said, the times they are a changing. Amen to that, sisters and brothers!
GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!!!! HIS TRUTH IS MARCHING ON!!!!
I was utterly gobsmacked to discover Mississippi still HAD this emblem on its flag, only the other day
I don't agree with wild illegal statue toppling, but egregious symbols of the slave-owning Confederacy, on a state flag??? Bonkers.
I hear you, LadyG, agree with you on both counts. Note that Georgia also used to feature the Confederate flag on its state flag (you can see it on old "Matlock" reruns) but it was removed in 2001.
Why was it put on these state flags? Partly our of pride of tradition, but mostly and chiefly to send the message loud and clear: this is White man's country, boy, and don't you ever forget it!
Well, more and more and more and more folks are saying: to hell with that shit!!!
We're judging the past by the present again. These symbols were probably granted to the southern states in an attempt to smoothe over relations after what had been an exhausting and extremely bitter war.
You don;t completely humiliate those you defeat if you want them to be your fellow citizens again. Which of course the North did.
Many confederate soldiers fought under that flag because it was the flag of their country, not because it was 'pro-slavery'. Slavery wasn;t an issue as they owned no slaves.
I'm not saying these flags should be flown now, but why they were around until recently was at least explainable.
The Missisipi flag was adopted decades after the end of the Civil War.
The stars and bars also wasn't the flag of the Confederacy, it was the battle ensign of the Army of North Virginia.
The incorporation of the stars and bars into the Mississippi flag was unequivocally about sending a message to the black population that they were still subjugated.
If the South wasn't fighting for slavery, why did Alexander Stephens, The Vice President of the Confederacy think it was?
Yes, the idea that The South wasn't fighting for Slavery is Lost Cause revisionist bollocks. Every confederate state made itnabintly clear thedor reason for succession was slavery in their notices.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
Sorry - was thinking of 1600s so should have put 17th century. Up to 5-7 storeys at that time I believe.
You're wrong, anyway.
The ancient city of Sana'a, Yemen, has many famous residential towers dating from the 11th century
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
Sorry - was thinking of 1600s so should have put 17th century. Up to 5-7 storeys at that time I believe.
You're wrong, anyway.
The ancient city of Sana'a, Yemen, has many famous residential towers dating from the 11th century
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
I think you will find the Romans were there first with apartment blocks. 9 stories were not unheard of.
Yes, the Romans too. Amazingly you can still find one or two. Rome is incredible.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
Sorry - was thinking of 1600s so should have put 17th century. Up to 5-7 storeys at that time I believe.
You're wrong, anyway.
The ancient city of Sana'a, Yemen, has many famous residential towers dating from the 11th century
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
The seawater thing was from the very bad film of the Day of The Triffids.
Good to see the Starmer fans, who love tenuous links for guilt by association charges, in full agreement, hand in hand, with Nigel Farage on Black Lives Matter by the way!
Shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU to see Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage on the same page regarding BLM!!
They're not though.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
"Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation."
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Its not their pose.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
Oh no, of course not! No one thinks of BLM when people take the knee
Absolutely 100% they don't.
People don't think "of Black Lives Matter" [the organisation] when people take the knee.
People think that "black lives matter" [the principle] when people take the knee.
Yes. Much as very large numbers of people are fans of looking after the environment, but wouldn't vote Green in a million years.
That's an excellent example.
When David Cameron said "Vote Blue, Go Green" he wasn't associating himself with the nuttiest Marxists of the Greens.
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
The opening chapter of day of the triffids is exceptional. The eerie calm of a silent London is magnificently described.
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
The opening chapter of day of the triffids is exceptional. The eerie calm of a silent London is magnificently described.
Fair enough. Haven't read it. It's just the silly movie I remember.
Quatermass and the Pit was far superior, from that era. Scared the bejasus out of me, even with its terrible special effects. Hob's End!
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
The opening chapter of day of the triffids is exceptional. The eerie calm of a silent London is magnificently described.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Only on average. The Scots invented high-rise flats (in Edinburgh, in the 16th centuries onward).
As early as that? What qualified as high rise at the time?
Sorry - was thinking of 1600s so should have put 17th century. Up to 5-7 storeys at that time I believe.
You're wrong, anyway.
The ancient city of Sana'a, Yemen, has many famous residential towers dating from the 11th century
They are surely the oldest surviving high rise housing still in use. The Roman ones are all shells.
I have never been and yearn to go. Tragically some of these exquisite buildings have been damaged in Yemen's terrible wars. But, one hopes, they can be repaired.
I have to say, in the government's position I'd be being much more cynical about the virus reporting, I'd be separating out care homes and putting infections and deaths in care homes into a separately reported category to update once a week and report community cases/deaths only on a daily basis. It would halve the reported daily death and new infections rate at a stroke and bury the care homes news to once a week, do it on a Friday and no one will read about it.
As I've said many, many times what happens in care homes is not relevant to the wider community and should be treated almost as a separate case with different controls and procedures in place, a level 5 lockdown of care homes should definitely be in place while the wider community is closer to a level 2 lockdown.
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
Eh? The whole point about the triffids is that they didn’t collapse.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
Didn't they just dissolve when someone chucked sea water on them? Or is that the aliens from War of the Worlds? Or the huge cockroach in Quatermass and the Pit? It was a long time ago and I was tiny
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
The opening chapter of day of the triffids is exceptional. The eerie calm of a silent London is magnificently described.
A literary masterpiece.
A startlingly large number of flamethrowers in military stockpiles though.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Covid case update, 29 June 2020: spot the difference time...
UK: 815 additional lab confirmed cases and 25 additional deaths Scotland: 5 new cases and (for the fourth day on the bounce) no deaths at all
Wait and see: the Scottish Government will have done a New Zealand by the end of the Summer, whilst Covid cases are still kicking the bucket in England at a rate of several hundred per week.
That will be the disaster that can't be explained away, and the Tory party and the Union will both be consigned to the dustbin of history within the next few years.
What precisely has Scotland done that is radically different, rather than minor adjustments to UK wide policies?
I don't know, but something is obviously going right up there. I don't think that the low population density argument is sufficient, because of the concentration of so many of the Scottish people in the central belt. Nor would the "Scotland is very white" argument seem to hold water, because Glasgow isn't and it's not lighting up as a hotspot relative to the rest of the country, or at least not anymore (besides which, there may be fewer ethnic minority people in Scotland but its age and general health profile is worse.) It would be fascinating to know to what extent the fading away of the disease in Scotland is down to policy and to what degree it's a matter of dumb luck, but that makes no difference to the fact that it's happening.
And we all know perfectly well what follows on from that. The Government in London is rubbish and is only there because the available alternative last December was even worse. This thing will flare up in the Autumn and Johnson and his ministers will be running round in circles like headless chickens, flapping their wings and babbling unintelligibly about yet more lockdowns and such like, whilst Scotland seals its borders and suffers no new cases at all. The only way we avoid that fate is if the University of Oxford vaccine project hits the jackpot, and if something sounds too good to be true it almost invariably is.
When considering the Westminstershambles, Murphy's Law applies.
If you don't know, then I think it is far far too early to state so definitively as you did that it cannot be explained away and that the Tories and Union will be consigned to the dustbin of history as a result.
That might happen, perhaps it will even happen for that reason and Westminster mistakes, but if we cannot identify a difference it seems unfair to rule out that someone might be able to explain the difference.
very clear that overall the death rate is significantly lower in Scotland , dropping quicker and must be some good reason behind it.
As of last Thursday there were still just under 500 people in hospital in Scotland, however hospitalisations have been single figures since the end of May. There seems to have been a fast drop-off in hospitalisations since mid April. I would guess that the relatively lower population density is in Scotland's favour.
Nope. Half the population (2.5m) lives in Greater Glasgow, which is a relatively small geographical area.
Of course England has several such metropolitan areas. But I am not sure what was being different as early as April to explain such a rapid tail-off.
Leicester faces a further two weeks of lockdown to fight a local flare-up of coronavirus that has prompted "concern" from the Prime Minister.
The latest data shows the city has an unusually high number of cases, so is likely to be exempted from the easing of lockdown across England on July 4.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, will make a statement about the city after 9pm this evening, but an extension to the closure of pubs and restaurants there now looks likely.
Sir Peter Soulsby, the Mayor of Leicester, said the Government was still "minded to extend the current level of restrictions for two weeks" after speaking to the Health Secretary today.
Given the problems Leicester, Liverpool, London and Wales have had its not been the best of adverts for Labour government.
10/10, the best trolling I've seen all week.
My thanks.
Its always nice to be successful by accident.
It's just perfect. A bouquet of partisanship, feigned ignorance and clear unfamiliarity with the governance of the UK's public health infrastructure brings a tear to the eye and bile to the throat.
Comments
Byronic was adamant he was a remainer.
Here it's a much more extreme proposal, which even most Labour left wingers wouldn't consider.
Trump is all about immediate gratification; but Roberts is playing the long game.
Now he's got left wingers and black people attacking him, whilst Nigel Farage is onside.. and challenging someone just out of intensive care to a push up competition!
That's what comes of trying too hard
I think that's very good news for the EU - the unstoppable train of hubris is over. Nonetheless there are questions. My money is all with the EU though - 99% chance of it being here in 10 years. It was never seriously under threat though.
Incidentally a prediction is pretty unlikely to be a lie, and certainly so here.
Keir Starmer is saying he respects "black lives matter" as a principle without signing up for organisational nonsense of BLM the organisation.
Farage isn't saying that. He's incapable of uttering the words "black lives matter" unless I've missed it.
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case. An official investigation commissioned later by Starmer criticised both prosecutors and police for their handling of the allegations.
I would have thought this is one you would want your most senior figures to consider.
However, the truth seems to be that the CPS is an utterly dysfunctional organisation. No DPP has ever run it successfully, and Starmer did an awful lot better than most of his predecessors.
Reforms such as in Camden, New Jersey are what BLM is advocating NOT zero budget. Would be better IF they said that, instead of a misleading slogan that does NOT test well in polls or focus groups.
That said, it's clear that majority of American public is now supporting BLM to some degree. One sign of this, is that cops who flaunt their racism are getting fired right and left from sea to shining sea.
That's what I said wasn't it?
This whole 'black lives matter' thing is horribly racist anyway. Skin colour doesn't matter. It never has and it never will. Sorry to pop you bubble.
over the target to oblivion or fall to the floor. Those two were straight and true.
The stars and bars also wasn't the flag of the Confederacy, it was the battle ensign of the Army of North Virginia.
The incorporation of the stars and bars into the Mississippi flag was unequivocally about sending a message to the black population that they were still subjugated.
Covid deaths are markedly down today, across the world.
Surely just coincidence. Unless this bug is suddenly collapsing like the Triffids.
He shoudn't have used their pose for a photo shoot when they were fighting with police in London if he didn't want to make it look like he was on their side!
Blimey, imagine Corbyn had made this error! At least he would have meant it and stuck by it!!
Someone marked a whole conversation about RLB's antisemitism as Off Topic in a thread with a topic of RLB getting sacked for antisemitism.
I think Starmer's defence is that 'he was present, but not involved'.
That's the line Corbyn used for everything, and it worked out great for him...
Given she was so young when elected, it makes me wonder if anyone has in their career been both the baby of the house and father of the house
Incidentally, today might be the first day when India tops the list for deaths.
Again you can say - and pose to say - black lives matter without signing up to any unrelated nonsense. Anyone sensible can distinguish the two.
The latest data shows the city has an unusually high number of cases, so is likely to be exempted from the easing of lockdown across England on July 4.
Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, will make a statement about the city after 9pm this evening, but an extension to the closure of pubs and restaurants there now looks likely.
Sir Peter Soulsby, the Mayor of Leicester, said the Government was still "minded to extend the current level of restrictions for two weeks" after speaking to the Health Secretary today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Posted on Lockdownsceptics today.
It might be Pennsylvania and Arizona will go to the Democrats and the GOP will pick up Minnesota - I don't know but I simply don't see this huge Democrat landslide.
I presume no one is taking the Trafalgar Poll in Wisconsin seriously - it shows Trump 0.9% ahead of Biden.
That’s why the final sentence has to be in the future tense.
I never really rated the Triffids anyway. A bunch of perambulating aspidistras taking over the world. Yeah, right
The Midwich Cuckoos? They were truly unnerving
People don't think "of Black Lives Matter" [the organisation] when people take the knee.
People think that "black lives matter" [the principle] when people take the knee.
The book ends very differently.
‘Our hopes all centre here now. It seems unlikely anything will come of Torrance’s neo-feudal plan although his settlements still exist with the inhabitants leading, so we hear, lives of misery and squalor behind their stockades. There are not so many of them as there were, though: Ivan frequently reports another has been overrun and the triffids surrounding it have dispersed to join other sieges.
So we must regard the task ahead as ours alone. We think now that we can see the way, but there is still a lot of work and research to be done before the day when we, or our children, or their children, will cross the narrow straits on the great crusade to drive the triffids back and back with ceaseless destruction until we have wiped the last one of them from the face of the land they have usurped.’
Its always nice to be successful by accident.
The ancient city of Sana'a, Yemen, has many famous residential towers dating from the 11th century
https://www.akdn.org/architecture/project/conservation-old-sanaa
https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/385/#:~:text=This religious and political heritage,the beauty of the site.
Though maybe there's an effect from dexamethasone being widely used as a treatment.
When David Cameron said "Vote Blue, Go Green" he wasn't associating himself with the nuttiest Marxists of the Greens.
Quatermass and the Pit was far superior, from that era. Scared the bejasus out of me, even with its terrible special effects. Hob's End!
I have never been and yearn to go. Tragically some of these exquisite buildings have been damaged in Yemen's terrible wars. But, one hopes, they can be repaired.
As I've said many, many times what happens in care homes is not relevant to the wider community and should be treated almost as a separate case with different controls and procedures in place, a level 5 lockdown of care homes should definitely be in place while the wider community is closer to a level 2 lockdown.
https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1277353982537674759
The spread of covid in the 'sunbelt' of the USA shows the dangers of having a lockdown too early.
Every place has its ability to tolerate a lockdown only to its own particular level though its own economic and social circumstances.
And you don't want to 'use' that lockdown tolerance until you need it.
Note the word selected.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/29/sturgeon-refuses-to-rule-out-scotland-screening-visitors-from-england