"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
That was always the slightly weird thing about Starkey, how in demand he was by QT and the like. I suppose the 'distinguished historian' fig leaf was handy though what they really wanted was the Faragist pus he enjoyed squirting over the airwaves.
That was my impression. Reactionary shock jock of the revolving bow tie sort employed to say fruity things.
Fair enough, why not. But he is a prime example of one of my most unfavourite types of bloke - the overbearing pontificating sort who feels entitled to be heard at great length on anything and everything. Throw in the politics and the mannered poshness and you've pretty much got a package that I can live without very easily indeed.
That said, I have been able to enjoy some of the historical documentaries he has done.
Speaking as a PBer with at least six of David Starkey's DVDs on the shelf behind me, and maybe a couple more in the other room, I too enjoyed his documentaries and avoided his musings on other subjects.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!
Tomorrow is Derby Day.
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ? Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day. However a rainy day at Catterick less so.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
It was - but Twitter took it down. Not sure whether it was the bad publicity or they believed it was racist
To be blunt, since it seems she was deliberately trying to throw petrol on the fire, she should probably be sacked from Cambridge for being a complete moron.
That’s doubly so as (a) she’s notorious for slinging around accusations of racism on dubious grounds (she refused to attend King’s College because the porters called her ‘madam’, which she claimed was racist) and (b) her publication record is pathetic. Normally you would need six or seven books to be a professor in the liberal arts in a reputable U.K. university. She’s somehow managed it with two and a handful of articles. She’s actually published less than I have.
That begs a number of concerning questions about why and how she’s got where she has.
But in a sense, that’s tangential to the issue that Starkey’s comments were clearly unacceptable and he had to quit.
To me, her tweet was right up to the line. I’m not surprised that Twitter took it down. (did they? or was that the other fake tweets?)
I’m not qualified to comment on her academic record.
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
No.
But if I had a big interest in Henry VII - yes.
You're not going up against the whole PB community on this one, are you?
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
The last I heard of this story is that the other tweets that attributed to her that were definitively over the line were fictions made up by trolls looking to stir up more conflict. IIRC the Daily Mail published the false ones & she is suing them for defamation isn’t she?
Give over.
If she had said "Black Lives Don't Matter. As Black Lives", or "Jewish Lives Don't Matter" etc etc, she would have been sacked like Starkey for racism and race-baiting.
She should at the very least have been reprimanded by Cambridge, but instead they rushed out some sanctimonious claptrap about "the absolute right to free speech at universities", which, in today's climate, is just laughable
I agree: it was deliberately inflammatory. But it wasn’t (quite) the thing that people accused her of.
It was one of the purest example of race-baiting that I have seen.
It was inflammatory, nasty, provocative, ugly, and, to most people, clearly racist. "White Lives Don't Matter".
It was also utterly pointless, apart from stirring up racialised grievance and anxiety, and delivering more attention to Ms Gopal, attention which she clearly adores
She's a race-baiter, and she does not benefit the reputation of Cambridge.
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!
Tomorrow is Derby Day.
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ? Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day. However a rainy day at Catterick less so.
Don’t they get a cut from the bookies? Or is that only the on-course ones?
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
You draw it on the side of Starkey getting the boot. This one is unambiguous: the point isn't to suppress unfashionable arguments but not to be rudely vile.
Yes. I loathe cancel culture but Starkey's comment was ugly and intolerable. What did he expect to happen?
Mind you, it is rank hypocrisy that Cambridge University was so quick to defenstrate Starkey, yet so eager to defend - on the grounds of free speech - the woman, Gopal, who said White Lives Don't Matter - an explicit bit of race-baiting which even Twitter found unacceptable
That tweet was contextualised with the caveat "... as white lives" as I recall. Which is guaranteed to rile up the alt-right, but if your only claim to identity is "whiteness" then you’ve got problems frankly.
It was - but Twitter took it down. Not sure whether it was the bad publicity or they believed it was racist
To be blunt, since it seems she was deliberately trying to throw petrol on the fire, she should probably be sacked from Cambridge for being a complete moron.
That’s doubly so as (a) she’s notorious for slinging around accusations of racism on dubious grounds (she refused to attend King’s College because the porters called her ‘madam’, which she claimed was racist) and (b) her publication record is pathetic. Normally you would need six or seven books to be a professor in the liberal arts in a reputable U.K. university. She’s somehow managed it with two and a handful of articles. She’s actually published less than I have.
That begs a number of concerning questions about why and how she’s got where she has.
But in a sense, that’s tangential to the issue that Starkey’s comments were clearly unacceptable and he had to quit.
To me, her tweet was right up to the line. I’m not surprised that Twitter took it down. (did they? or was that the other fake tweets?)
I’m not qualified to comment on her academic record.
Starkey is a disappointment though.
Yes, Twitter took it down as being abusive and harmful. It is staggering she was not even asked to apologise, by Cambridge
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
His regime also, AIUI..... stand to be corrected....... brought peace and stability after a somewhat horrendous several years. And there's nothing your average peasant and merchant likes better than a chance to get on with whatever it is they do without having their sons dragged away to fight in wars the purpose of which they only dimly understand, and care even less. Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!
Maybe fill !!!!!
York has loads of pubs in the city centre. However many are very small , hard to see them making a living, even with the reduction to 1m plus social distancing.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
Here you go, one of the main candidates is this one:
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!
Tomorrow is Derby Day.
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ? Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day. However a rainy day at Catterick less so.
Presumably sponsors and media rights holders are paying the event staging cost themselves, as with F1?
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
In any case, it was John Major who first channelled Superman. Or am I too influenced by Steve Bell's cartoons?
Edit: Idiot that I am. It was Harold Macmillan who was first.
Ah, the "shirt tucked into underpants" meme. Yes, that was enormously damaging for Major. Johnson takes no chances on that score. Shirt rarely tucked into anything.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...
I haven't seen the film Gaslight, but I believe the plot centres around a man deliberately convincing a woman she is insane. My understanding of the term now is that someone says they are experiencing racism and someone else says they are not, trying to make the racism sufferer think that they are crazy. I can see why the term gaslight was chosen, but unless the gaslighter has deliberately perpetrated the racism themselves, a vital component is surely missing. They are not gaslighting; they're disagreeing.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
His regime also, AIUI..... stand to be corrected....... brought peace and stability after a somewhat horrendous several years. And there's nothing your average peasant and merchant likes better than a chance to get on with whatever it is they do without having their sons dragged away to fight in wars the purpose of which they only dimly understand, and care even less. Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.
No. There had been instability from 1483-1485, but that was preceded by twelve years of peace.
Edward IV ended the Wars of the Roses at Tewkesbury with the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales and the last of the male Beauforts. His second reign was noted for its calm and prosperity.
Yes, Richard stupidly buggered everything up through his greed and ambition but the actual fighting was pretty limited. Bosworth was the only battle, and compared to Tewkesbury, Barnet, Towton, Northampton or even Hexham it was barely more than a skirmish.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
Here you go, one of the main candidates is this one:
(although I think the EU's new announcement is more about buying power than research).
That was my impression too. Their previous attempts seemed very sluggish though, which isn't too surprising given the level of bureaucracy it must involve.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Mocking Tonga? Your kidding, right? I think we should jump in with both feet to whatever they are doing.
Why wouldn't I? Tonga and the EU are pretty similar in all sorts of ways.
I think we should keep open eyes to what everyone's doing but I'm not especially familiar with either Tonga's scheme of research or the EU's.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
Here you go, one of the main candidates is this one:
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
In any case, it was John Major who first channelled Superman. Or am I too influenced by Steve Bell's cartoons?
Edit: Idiot that I am. It was Harold Macmillan who was first.
Ah, the "shirt tucked into underpants" meme. Yes, that was enormously damaging for Major. Johnson takes no chances on that score. Shirt rarely tucked into anything.
Anyone who does press-ups wearing a tie is asking for trouble!
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...
I haven't seen the film Gaslight, but I believe the plot centres around a man deliberately convincing a woman she is insane. My understanding of the term now is that someone says they are experiencing racism and someone else says they are not, trying to make the racism sufferer think that they are crazy. I can see why the term gaslight was chosen, but unless the gaslighter has deliberately perpetrated the racism themselves, a vital component is surely missing. They are not gaslighting; they're disagreeing.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
Tomorrow is the 4th July, Independence Day! Tomorrow the pubs are open. Have a drink on me. Full year boots!
Tomorrow is Derby Day.
True, how are racecourses making any money without spectators ? Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day. However a rainy day at Catterick less so.
Don’t they get a cut from the bookies? Or is that only the on-course ones?
To be honest ydoethur I do not know. York racecourse has a massive hospitality sector , when not in racing use . Weddings , functions etc. Also live music events. On a big race day at York, they get 30 thousand or more on the course , drinking and eating as well as on course betting. So most of their income seems to have gone, until it fully resumes. York only has flat racing , May until October.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Yes, very good.
But re your point, no, a BRAND. And I do not "go on about it". I gave it an airing today for the 1st time in ages. Hopefully, one or two "Boris" posters who are not fans of his will at least think about maybe switching to "Johnson".
This is all I ask or could ever hope for.
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.
Moreover, if you say "Johnson" it's not instantly obvious who you mean, BECAUSE so many people refer to him, and know him, as "Boris".
You do love your little campaigns, but this is one that won't work
No, it is about the brand. None of that changes the point at issue. And you say this - about "little campaigns" - but how many movements that end up delivering sweeping societal change start just like this with one or two people on the internet? (in this case me and OLB)
Answer. Not many. But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.
Cherrypicking? from the EU? Now I've seen everything.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Yes, very good.
But re your point, no, a BRAND. And I do not "go on about it". I gave it an airing today for the 1st time in ages. Hopefully, one or two "Boris" posters who are not fans of his will at least think about maybe switching to "Johnson".
This is all I ask or could ever hope for.
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.
Moreover, if you say "Johnson" it's not instantly obvious who you mean, BECAUSE so many people refer to him, and know him, as "Boris".
You do love your little campaigns, but this is one that won't work
No, it is about the brand. None of that changes the point at issue. And you say that - about "little campaigns" - but how many movements that end up delivering sweeping societal change start just like this with one person on the internet?
Not many.
But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.
Are the facilities in the UK? Or just the parent companies?
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
The EU is probably not without self-interest here.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
The UK does have those advantages but it's not particularly strong in mass-market production of vaccines, which is likely to be the crucial limiting factor once we have one or more approved vaccines.
The times are changing though, Richard. Both Astra and GSK are investing in vaccine production, GSK partnered with Sanofi recently to that end.
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.
EU countries already have an agreement with AstraZeneca on the Oxford vaccine:
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
Huh? Henry VII was of course the one who killed the princes.
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegation
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...
I haven't seen the film Gaslight, but I believe the plot centres around a man deliberately convincing a woman she is insane. My understanding of the term now is that someone says they are experiencing racism and someone else says they are not, trying to make the racism sufferer think that they are crazy. I can see why the term gaslight was chosen, but unless the gaslighter has deliberately perpetrated the racism themselves, a vital component is surely missing. They are not gaslighting; they're disagreeing.
Aren't there cases of racist gaslighters telling folk who have experienced racism that they have not? Isn't that the point?
'Thas not racist, just a bit of banter. You dusky folk need to grow a thicker skin or find a sense of humour if yer gonna fit in. Dunno what the world's cumming to..' etc etc
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
What if he wrote the seminal work on Henry VII. Would you read it?
1. I'd be extremely surprised. 2. I'd wait for @ydoethur to review it.
You’d be waiting quite a while. I’m more into Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard III. Henry VII was important, but he’s not only rather dull by comparison (which was unsurprisingly reasonably popular at least for time after a child killing wife swindling niece groping land grasping psychopath) he’s also very difficult to get under the skin of. No biographer of him from Bacon onwards has ever shown any real sign of understanding him.
His regime also, AIUI..... stand to be corrected....... brought peace and stability after a somewhat horrendous several years. And there's nothing your average peasant and merchant likes better than a chance to get on with whatever it is they do without having their sons dragged away to fight in wars the purpose of which they only dimly understand, and care even less. Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.
No. There had been instability from 1483-1485, but that was preceded by twelve years of peace.
Edward IV ended the Wars of the Roses at Tewkesbury with the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales and the last of the male Beauforts. His second reign was noted for its calm and prosperity.
Yes, Richard stupidly buggered everything up through his greed and ambition but the actual fighting was pretty limited. Bosworth was the only battle, and compared to Tewkesbury, Barnet, Towton, Northampton or even Hexham it was barely more than a skirmish.
I'm obliged. Actually, as far as your average etc was concerned, starting the fighting up again would have been a real no-no. In spite of moving to science I've always been interested in history. Currently 'doing' a history counterfactual course on line.with the WEA. Not particularly impressed with it so far, (What if William the Bastard had lost at Hastings....... personally I thought it would have been more interesting if it had been 'what if' Harold II had lost at Stamford Bridge) but next week we're doing 'what if the Pope had granted Henry VIII an annulment'. TBH, IMHO although we might have saved some of England and Wales historic art, it wouldn't have made all that difference.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...
The mother of my eldest angrily accused me of "gaslighting" her. Whilst she was trying (and failing) to financially blackmail me. Since then I completely ignore the word as meaningless guff.
There’s going to be a very interesting balance to be struck between governments, regulatory authorities, IP owners and manufacturers, when it comes to vaccines.
In the end, there will probably be one or two vaccines approved, and every available production facility on the planet churning them out 24/7 as everyone else argues about the bill.
Not sure anyone’s going to trust the Chinese, who are testing at large scale on their own military.
As for BoJo's nomenclature? Nor really fussed tbh.
I think OnlyLivingBoy goes too far, but I do agree that that "Boris" is problematic, even if only mildly. From an electoral advantage point of view, I mean. Fair playing field and all that. So it`s Johnson and Starmer for me. Always has been.
I don't see why using a forename is problematic at all.
"Call me Tony" started this before Boris was an MP and when I was a child. Then we had "Dave" decades later.
I couldn't give less of a s**t if people say Boris or Johnson and the more people whinge about it the more tempted I am to just write Boris.
You are a big big supporter of his. So "Boris" makes sense for you. You want to push his brand. You want him to prosper.
Any "Johnson" from you - which we do sometimes get - is a bonus and much appreciated.
But I don't call him Boris to be partisan, I do it because its his name.
Just like Tony or Gordon before him.
If you had called Blair "Charles" or "Anthony" - also one of his names - then that would have been weird.
Johnson reportedly goes by the name Al in his private life, so using that makes some sense. Although "Boris" is one of his names he uses it as a brand identity. Perhaps Blair was the same and doesn't use "Tony" in his private life.
I think the aspect of it being a public persona, rather than a more natural intimacy, is worthy of comment (but not whinging, oh no, never that).
That's ridiculous. I couldn't care what name he uses privately, he's not Al to me. Boris is his name, just like Tony Blair's public name was Tony even if it wasn't his first name. Gordon Brown's public name was Gordon even if it wasn't his first name.
I don't think public personas for public people is worthy of comment, public people should be entitled to private lives just like everyone else.
Superman gets in the news for his actions under that name, even if his friends in private life call him Clark in his private life, or his parents called him Kal-El.
That's an interesting (!) persona that pops into your mind when you think of Boris Johnson. Superman.
What's going on there?
I had a feeling you'd respond to that.
I didn't compare Boris to Clark Kent - and if I really wanted to compliment him I'd compare him to Bruce Wayne instead. But I don't, not like that.
OK. If you were just trying to trigger me it's mission accomplished.
I wouldn't put it past you to subliminally think Superman - tight yellow top, red trunks and all - when you see him but I will accept for now that this is not the case.
Disappointed with that "Boris" there.
Well you're the one who keeps going on about how "Boris" is a persona, an act.
So on the one hand we have a hero who makes the world a better place, but hides it behind a mild mannered persona and acting as a journalist . . . and on the other hand we have the Man of Steel.
Yes, very good.
But re your point, no, a BRAND. And I do not "go on about it". I gave it an airing today for the 1st time in ages. Hopefully, one or two "Boris" posters who are not fans of his will at least think about maybe switching to "Johnson".
This is all I ask or could ever hope for.
lol. It's never going to happen. For a start Boris or Bojo or whatever are shorter and therefore easier to type.
Moreover, if you say "Johnson" it's not instantly obvious who you mean, BECAUSE so many people refer to him, and know him, as "Boris".
You do love your little campaigns, but this is one that won't work
No, it is about the brand. None of that changes the point at issue. And you say that - about "little campaigns" - but how many movements that end up delivering sweeping societal change start just like this with one person on the internet?
Not many.
But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
#killboris
Ill-advised, methinks
Alright. Suppose that could be deliberately misconstrued by mischief makers. Let me work on it.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma* and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.
So was it right to sack Starkey or does this come under "cancel culture"? Where do you draw the line?
For me, it's a slam dunk case of let's have no more of him on TV pontificating about current affairs. And if this is what "cancel culture" means, it's something I'm on board with.
That was always the slightly weird thing about Starkey, how in demand he was by QT and the like. I suppose the 'distinguished historian' fig leaf was handy though what they really wanted was the Faragist pus he enjoyed squirting over the airwaves.
That was my impression. Reactionary shock jock of the revolving bow tie sort employed to say fruity things.
Fair enough, why not. But he is a prime example of one of my most unfavourite types of bloke - the overbearing pontificating sort who feels entitled to be heard at great length on anything and everything. Throw in the politics and the mannered poshness and you've pretty much got a package that I can live without very easily indeed.
That said, I have been able to enjoy some of the historical documentaries he has done.
Speaking as a PBer with at least six of David Starkey's DVDs on the shelf behind me, and maybe a couple more in the other room, I too enjoyed his documentaries and avoided his musings on other subjects.
Yep. That's me too. And now we will not have to avoid his off piste musings.
"The question isn't whether Trump will find a way to beat Biden, it's whether Biden will find a way to lose to Trump."
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Can you point me to figures comparing UK vaccine manufacturing capacity with that based in the EU ? (I suspect not.) Production capacity is as important, if not more so, in delivering vaccines on a mass scale as the vaccine development itself.
As far as European vaccine efforts are concerned, there are a number.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma* and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.
If Brexit dogma wins over an effective vaccine programme, then PM Johnson runs the risk of going down as far more inept, and worthy of excoriation, than Lord North, Cameron or May.
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
I can't believe they're offering us the chance to quite honestly. It'd be mad not to take them up on it.
We have automatic right to these programmes until the end of the year. It's a case of whether we join in, where according to the government sources quoted by the article the trade-off is between Brexit dogma* and a more effective vaccine programme in the UK.
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.
Of course, for hardcore Remainers it’s “Brexit dogma vs saving lives”. For the government, it’s a balance of ability to acquire IP and manufacturing facility capacity, against the chance that someone else refuses to deal with the UK a as a point of dogmatic principle.
I always associated the term "gaslighting" to specifically refer to cases of domestic abuse. It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours. I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegation
Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...
"London is assessing whether the advantages of the European bloc's bargaining power to strike deals with international drugs companies outweigh the broader political desire to sever ties with Brussels..."
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
"The question isn't whether Trump will find a way to beat Biden, it's whether Biden will find a way to lose to Trump."
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.
Clinton has a tin ear when it comes to elective politics - unlike Bill. To you list I would add blowing off meetings with core Democrat groups like the Teachers Unions, taking a holiday in the Hamptons in the middle of the Campaign and the paid closed door events at venues such as Goldman Sachs.
"The question isn't whether Trump will find a way to beat Biden, it's whether Biden will find a way to lose to Trump."
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.
Clinton has a tin ear when it comes to elective politics - unlike Bill. To you list I would add blowing off meetings with core Democrat groups like the Teachers Unions, taking a holiday in the Hamptons in the middle of the Campaign and the paid closed door events at venues such as Goldman Sachs.
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegation
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegation
If it's all as reported, the BBC should apologise, clarify and reimburse Grimes' costs immediately. (That initial letter won't have been for free !). I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
Not an expert on libel law but suspect it would be difficult to pin the fact of an interviewee making a false statement on live radio to the broadcaster and that they would need to endorse the statement in some way, eg by repeating the comments on their website.
The BBC has of course the ability to find old promotional clips that may throw some clarity on the allegation
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.
Also note where the solicitor's letter quotes directly and where it refers indirectly to speech made. I think it's the indirect part that is key here.
As the solicitor is clearly not doing it on a contingency basis, I suspect all he sees is someone willing to give his firm a large sum of money for a pointless case (and Grimes appears to have the ability to get people to give him money to pass on to said law firm).
Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...
The Smithfield pubs were always fun - the all night clubbers mixing with the porters and the drink-my-breakfast crowd.
Starkey enjoys - or at least used to enjoy - being controversial and colorful, both for internal amusement AND for external publicity. Which is fine 99% of the time BUT there's that 1% when it is NOT.
In this case, he opened his mouth and ran right into a buzz-saw. Should have known better. Apparently didn't notice some rather striking cases here in US recently where various celebrities, business leaders, etc. did the same thing, and found themselves holding their fool heads in a basket.
My guess is that, if DS found himself in the court of Henry VIII, he'd have lasted about a week. One funny remark to many and . . . his head would be grinning from atop the Tower Gate.
I always associated the term "gaslighting" to specifically refer to cases of domestic abuse. It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours. I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."
I think it's heavily overused in reference to politics, to the point where it's not really clear if it has a meaning any more. To the extent that it does mean something beyond just "saying something I disagree with", I think it's basically when somebody believes they see consent being manufactured (in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent ) for something that to them is clearly not true.
That's still not a great fit for the original term, in which the point was to make the victim question their sanity, but language evolves.
No doubt when you travel to anywhere you need to understand that countries health requirements but of course returning from them is free of restriction if you live in England
Does it need to? And going forward, does it need to join every EU scheme under the sun?
What if the UK vaccine currently being developed doesn’t work out ? Wouldn’t it make sense to have an insurance policy ? Or does the hatred of anything with EU in the name by the cabinet mean the UK puts all its eggs in one basket .
You think the only way of doing that is with the EU?
I think Tonga has an advanced programme which we could ask to piggyback.
Since you're mocking Tonga can you point me in the direction of the advanced programmes of research the EU has into a vaccine? How do they compare with the Oxford/Astrazenica research?
Can you point me to figures comparing UK vaccine manufacturing capacity with that based in the EU ? (I suspect not.) Production capacity is as important, if not more so, in delivering vaccines on a mass scale as the vaccine development itself.
As far as European vaccine efforts are concerned, there are a number.
Vaccine production capability is the key point here. And - IIRC - the vast majority of vaccines are still made using hen's eggs, where small amounts are injected into eggs, where they replicate, and are then harvested.
Now, I could be wrong, but the UK's very strict animal welfare standards mean it's unlikely that we have much capacity. Simply, our chickens (and eggs) are more expensive than those where standards are lower.
Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...
Those pubs used to be key in doing the 24 hour pub crawl in the old days. Them, plus late lock-ins, and "dens" to bridge the middle of pm hole.
I always associated the term "gaslighting" to specifically refer to cases of domestic abuse. It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours. I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."
You do have to be precise with it. It loses its power otherwise.
Mind you, I expect it should be fairly easy to get a 6am booking and you'd probably have the pub to yourself.
I remember several years ago I arranged to meet a client for a breakfast meeting in the City and he took me to a pub in Smithfields and there we sat at 7.30am supping pints...
Those pubs used to be key in doing the 24 hour pub crawl in the old days. Them, plus late lock-ins, and "dens" to bridge the middle of pm hole.
Don't know why I'm telling you. Granny and eggs.
Did you ever go to the "bar" under Venus Videos in Soho - opened at 3am?
'We have to take risks at whatever we do and this seems a reasonable package of risks at this particular time at this particular pace, but none of us believe this is a risk free next step'
Comments
They are in fact weighing up whether even the most rabid Brexiteer might prioritise saving lives over enforcing their dogma.
First PB confirms to me what I had suspected, that "gaslighting" is a meaningless term as applied to political discourse albeit it has a place in the far reaches of DSM V.
And secondly, I have found out who Darren Grimes is.
The weekend awaits...
(I’ll try and contribute some more for the racing cars).
Some like Epsom will get a large TV audience on such a day.
However a rainy day at Catterick less so.
I’m not qualified to comment on her academic record.
Starkey is a disappointment though.
I think he wins the libel action if they don't.
It was inflammatory, nasty, provocative, ugly, and, to most people, clearly racist. "White Lives Don't Matter".
It was also utterly pointless, apart from stirring up racialised grievance and anxiety, and delivering more attention to Ms Gopal, attention which she clearly adores
She's a race-baiter, and she does not benefit the reputation of Cambridge.
I'm aware of trials ongoing in the UK, USA, Brazil, South Africa, China and elsewhere - I'm curious about these EU trials to which you refer can you point me in their direction please I'd like to read up on them?
Although as, IIRC< Mr Malmesbury pointed out the other day, the bitterness engendered by those wars travels down the ages.
However many are very small , hard to see them making a living, even with the reduction to 1m plus social distancing.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1034
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/news/pfizer-biontech-vaccine-data/
(although I think the EU's new announcement is more about buying power than research).
Gosden would not run him unless he had showed him something special
Edward IV ended the Wars of the Roses at Tewkesbury with the deaths of Edward Prince of Wales and the last of the male Beauforts. His second reign was noted for its calm and prosperity.
Yes, Richard stupidly buggered everything up through his greed and ambition but the actual fighting was pretty limited. Bosworth was the only battle, and compared to Tewkesbury, Barnet, Towton, Northampton or even Hexham it was barely more than a skirmish.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-49661019
Starmer's bridge building, so lacks the ambition of Johnson's bridges.
The UK has one of the most advanced pharmaceutical industries in the EU, and some of the best research and universities.
Getting the UK on board means more financial muscle, and also access to UK pharma
Gov't just needs to spin it as cherry picking from the EU for domestic purposes if questioned about it.
York racecourse has a massive hospitality sector , when not in racing use .
Weddings , functions etc.
Also live music events.
On a big race day at York, they get 30 thousand or more on the course , drinking and eating as well as on course betting.
So most of their income seems to have gone, until it fully resumes.
York only has flat racing , May until October.
As has been pointed out, this is the EU asking us to help with the heavy lifting of getting Europe vaccinated, not the other way around. Let's not pretend they are extending the hand of friendship here so we can benefit from their one vaccine candidate which has yet to go into phase one trials. They need us to be in this scheme.
Answer. Not many. But it does happen. Mighty oaks from. A journey of a thousand starts with. All those cliches. Cliches for a reason. It does happen. Just need a hashtag.
#killboris
England Regional Case Data (Pillar 1 & 2)
As ever last 3-5 days will be revised - last 5 days included for completeness
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wpn4jT9O9Bt33KHmMXOxvueY9tLa-Zva/view?usp=sharing
Unmissable!
https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazeneca-to-supply-europe-with-up-to-400-million-doses-of-oxford-universitys-vaccine-at-no-profit.html
AZ are going to be manufacturing it in various countries (either themselves or with partners) including a large chunk of the production in the EU.
https://twitter.com/Ian_Fraser/status/1279075465018343424
As I said before I suspect there is enough information online to (at the very least) provide some confirmation of the comment,.
'Thas not racist, just a bit of banter. You dusky folk need to grow a thicker skin or find a sense of humour if yer gonna fit in. Dunno what the world's cumming to..' etc etc
In spite of moving to science I've always been interested in history. Currently 'doing' a history counterfactual course on line.with the WEA. Not particularly impressed with it so far, (What if William the Bastard had lost at Hastings....... personally I thought it would have been more interesting if it had been 'what if' Harold II had lost at Stamford Bridge) but next week we're doing 'what if the Pope had granted Henry VIII an annulment'. TBH, IMHO although we might have saved some of England and Wales historic art, it wouldn't have made all that difference.
In the end, there will probably be one or two vaccines approved, and every available production facility on the planet churning them out 24/7 as everyone else argues about the bill.
Not sure anyone’s going to trust the Chinese, who are testing at large scale on their own military.
Good band name.
* I am interpreting "political desire to sever ties with Brussels" as Brexit dogma.
It's cancel culture at it's very best.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/07/fatal-delusions-boris-johnson
Exactly. In 20116, Hillary Clinton snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. NOT just because of one dumb remark ("deplorables") but instead for a whole series of mistakes, miscalculations, etc. etc. Such as NEVER campaigning in Wisconsin, picking Tim Kaine as running mate (he did nothing for her except in VA which she'd have won without him on the ticket), and ignoring blue-collar White voters in pursuit of boosting Black voter turnout.
Biden will make mistakes & of course gaffes. BUT not the kind of fundamental strategic errors that sunk Hillary.
Production capacity is as important, if not more so, in delivering vaccines on a mass scale as the vaccine development itself.
As far as European vaccine efforts are concerned, there are a number.
Here's a recent list of the most advanced/promising vaccine programs:
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/29/coronavirus-vaccine-update-june-29
I've listed the European based involvement below:
Reithera (Italy)
Merck (US) /Themis (Austria)
Pfizer (US)/Biontech (Germany)
CureVac (Germany)
Sanofi (France)/Translate (US)
Sanofi (France)/ GSK (UK)
It most certainly does exist in that context and is a useful and widespread term for some awful behaviours.
I have only come across it today in other situations. Not sure it serves any great purpose in these if it merely means "not in agreement with me."
And until they've been in widespread use, our knowledge of the trade-offs will be a little hazy.
Singapore says no.
As do many of the countries on the list.....
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-countries-and-territories-exempt-from-advice-against-all-but-essential-international-travel
The BBC says Grimes describes his site as "a safe space for racist or homophobic views"
Grimes there says: "do you hide your political views FOR FEAR of being called racist" etc etc
FOR FEAR is the crucial distinction. It is absolutely disingenuous to ignore this
In this case, he opened his mouth and ran right into a buzz-saw. Should have known better. Apparently didn't notice some rather striking cases here in US recently where various celebrities, business leaders, etc. did the same thing, and found themselves holding their fool heads in a basket.
My guess is that, if DS found himself in the court of Henry VIII, he'd have lasted about a week. One funny remark to many and . . . his head would be grinning from atop the Tower Gate.
That's still not a great fit for the original term, in which the point was to make the victim question their sanity, but language evolves.
I've voted for WIlkinson's drop goal. Watched that one in Australia, brilliant.
Now, I could be wrong, but the UK's very strict animal welfare standards mean it's unlikely that we have much capacity. Simply, our chickens (and eggs) are more expensive than those where standards are lower.
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1279088001927319552
Don't know why I'm telling you. Granny and eggs.
Chris Whitty
'We have to take risks at whatever we do and this seems a reasonable package of risks at this particular time at this particular pace, but none of us believe this is a risk free next step'
But it's Murray Wimbo 2013 for me.