Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Does it have a multi-storey car park, that seems to be the solution. If Asda can have one then I don't see why the hospital can't.
Go to a hospital car park now, they are all empty!
I’ve been reading recent contributions by economists to understanding the spread of the virus. They really do have something valuable to offer. Importantly they try to take into account the public’s behaviour in response to the virus and the effects of public policy on that behaviour and thence to the outcome of the epidemic.
Here are the brief notes I took on three example papers.
John Cochrane takes this further, in particular by assuming that people attempt to reduce their contacts in proportion to the chance of getting the disease but with lack of testing they do so in response to the current death rate. He shows that this greatly improves the fit to what we have observed compared to the basic epidemiological model. Then he shows that we can understand the effect of policy interventions (social distancing, relaxation etc) as impinging on the predictions by affecting key behavioural parameters. He argues that good information on how many people are infected in one's local area would be really helpful to avoid waves of infections, and that widespread testing available (no protocol, no prescription, just go get it, free market) would radically reduce the economic costs of social distancing, and end the epidemic fast. https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/05/an-sir-model-with-behavior.html
On Cochrane’s to do list is to derive his assumed behavioural responses from a maximization problem, and consider the tradeoff between more distancing and economic costs. This is what David Meenagh and Patrick Minford attempt in “A structural model of corona virus behaviour for testing on data behaviour” http://carbsecon.com/wp/E2020_4.pdf In fact they assume optimising behaviour on the part of both the virus (based on evolutionary biology) and the optimising behaviour of households. Comparing the UK with Sweden they find “that the UK lockdown was no more effective in reducing deaths than the Swedish reliance on voluntary socially aware behaviour, whereas the economic cost of the UK policy was enormously bigger.” Interestingly they also find that “herd immunity” is attained at a much lower level of infection (7%) than the pure epidemiological model (60%) because of the behavioural response to the epidemic.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Does it have a multi-storey car park, that seems to be the solution. If Asda can have one then I don't see why the hospital can't.
The Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle city centre has both a multi-storey car park AND a normal one purely for patients and under normal circumstances they are both full. Like @Philip_Thompson said, one in, one out. I usually go at 8am, hours before my appointment, simply to get a space and have a coffee.
Staff have to park in the west-end and get a bus to the hospital, although I understand this fills up quickly too.
Solution is definitely to build downwards and upwards.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Swann has said that it made a huge difference in terms of the number of lbw decisions given for off-spinners. Umpires have become convinced by the technology that they can give more of those out, when they rarely did before.
It makes sense.
When it first came out I thought that the system would assist the batsmen more than the bowlers on the simple basis that they both get the same number of reviews but there are very, very limited numbers of errors for batsmen but much more ambiguity for bowlers - so the fielding team would be more likely to waste their reviews.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
While ignoring the fact the Mandelson is a holder of an EU pension, which carries with it certain obligations which would appear to be incompatible with the role.
And that he was fired from government three times. Why would it make any sense at all to put up someone who would likely frustrate the UK's foreign policy and trade objectives?
Mandy was fired three times, let's out up the guy who was fired once instead?
We're not going to get it, it's a political appointment and the UK is not very popular right now.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Francis Urqhart knew whereof he spoke when he said "They have the sexual appetites of goats."
Nevertheless if the article is a genuine account - and it would appear to ring true with at least some balance - he comes across as a naive idiot rather than someone implicated in the worst of Epstein/Maxwell's (alleged) goings on.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
Can't build hospital car parks - there will be something in the PFI contract that prevents it. Same as the £120 to replace a bulb rubbish - renegotiate the contracts: 1. No contract is absolute and there are no alternative uses for their PFI building should they refuse 2. The consortia who hold them bank on debt as income. Imperil the income and the value collapses. 3. The private sector understands hard ball renegotiation of contracts.
Tell hospital trusts that they are to buy their bulbs wholesale and to stick an upper deck on all their carparks. Let the PFI loons try to enforce their contract if they dare.
Can't build hospital car parks - there will be something in the PFI contract that prevents it. Same as the £120 to replace a bulb rubbish - renegotiate the contracts: 1. No contract is absolute and there are no alternative uses for their PFI building should they refuse 2. The consortia who hold them bank on debt as income. Imperil the income and the value collapses. 3. The private sector understands hard ball renegotiation of contracts.
Tell hospital trusts that they are to buy their bulbs wholesale and to stick an upper deck on all their carparks. Let the PFI loons try to enforce their contract if they dare.
This car parking story is so odd and can only surely be perceived negatively?
Why would they want to fight this kind of battle, it's just like the school meals one all over again, there is no upside.
Because a) they are out of touch, or b) the can, and they don't care.
A benefit of Corbyn donating an 80 seat majority.
Its both A and B. This particular flavour of "Tory" doesn't really have a clue how people live or what they do. What they do know is that things were Good before the Rona for them, and that tings should go back to where they were. Its not as if people weren't happy back then, they voted Tory so they must agree.
This is the great failing of the 40 year era ending in 2019. People got superficially better off and materially worse off. We have had different flavours of Tory and Labour government and even a coalition yet not a lot of actual change has happened. So people decided to throw the dice and Brexit would be the way out. Then Tory majority government to secure the Brexit.
What the Tories haven't understood is that the red wall vote for them was a credit note. Unless positive change is delivered (and Brexit isn't change, just a means of change) then people are going to go ape shit. Which is why we're now seeing attacks on parents and care homes and now NHS staff. Back in your box, as you were, get on with it. I don't think it will work...
I disagree completely about the failing of the period 1979 - 2019. Back in the 70s/80s politics was about things like unemployment, inflation, interest rates and crime. Britain was a much better place in the mid 2010s on all those measures. But the media sell more papers on "we're all going to hell in a handcart" than "things are actually quite a bit better than they used to be". So politics became about culture instead of economics.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Swann has said that it made a huge difference in terms of the number of lbw decisions given for off-spinners. Umpires have become convinced by the technology that they can give more of those out, when they rarely did before.
It makes sense.
When it first came out I thought that the system would assist the batsmen more than the bowlers on the simple basis that they both get the same number of reviews but there are very, very limited numbers of errors for batsmen but much more ambiguity for bowlers - so the fielding team would be more likely to waste their reviews.
It doesn't seem to have worked that way.
The Laws instruct an Umpire to give the benefit of the doubt to the batter - which is reasonable since the bowler has another chance to dismiss them the next ball, but a batter in the Pavilion has no more chances. The experience of the review system has reduced that doubt.
I expected the same as you, I think because my cognitive bias made me remember the poor Umpire decisions that incorrectly gave batters out, rather than the other way round.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
We should abolish GPs entirely.
What would you replace them with?
Tbf, I'd reorganise the whole health service into triage centres, general hospitals and specialist hospitals. I wrote s fairly detailed report on it a couple of years ago for a healthcare client in a consulting capacity, I'll dig it up and do an executive summary.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
Just says average so it will be media average and including the public sector.
If the media is 33 including the public sector then the mean being 28 within private sector seems almost certain to me.
LOL, someone belatedly realised that you can't just take laptops out of the box and give them to kids, without setting them up for educational use first - well, not unless you want them infested with viruses and full of porn in three days flat, anyway.
I can't get bnehind the paywall but an immediate suspicion arises that the different Scottish school holidays have been overlooked by commentators. In fact a little checking shows that the scheme was announced only on 21 May and as the schools packed up on 3 July that doesn't leave much time for acquisition and, as you say, setup, as all the local authorities need to be involved and all the schoolteachers would have been pretty busy.
Edfit: also, the original announcement specifically refers to use in the new school year - after the children return on 11 August.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
We should abolish GPs entirely.
What would you replace them with?
Tbf, I'd reorganise the whole health service into triage centres, general hospitals and specialist hospitals. I wrote s fairly detailed report on it a couple of years ago for a healthcare client in a consulting capacity, I'll dig it up and do an executive summary.
Sounds reasonable to me. To be honest the whole concept of the GP seems fairly antiquated. For example my consultants will address all letters to my GP instead of me, for what seems like absolutely no reason. My GP does not care, and likely does not read them unless I go to my GP for an appointment. They are entirely inconsequential once I’m in the hospital system.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
We should abolish GPs entirely.
What would you replace them with?
Tbf, I'd reorganise the whole health service into triage centres, general hospitals and specialist hospitals. I wrote s fairly detailed report on it a couple of years ago for a healthcare client in a consulting capacity, I'll dig it up and do an executive summary.
Sounds reasonable to me. To be honest the whole concept of the GP seems fairly antiquated. For example my consultants will address all letters to my GP instead of me, for what seems like absolutely no reason. My GP does not care, and likely does not read them unless I go to my GP for an appointment. They are entirely inconsequential once I’m in the hospital system.
Plus I wish I had the option to be emailed instead of letters being sent in the post.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
Just says average so it will be media average and including the public sector.
If the media is 33 including the public sector then the mean being 28 within private sector seems almost certain to me.
Lost you there unless media=mean and mean=median! Median is the most common number.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
Just says average so it will be media average and including the public sector.
If the media is 33 including the public sector then the mean being 28 within private sector seems almost certain to me.
Lost you there unless media=mean and mean=median! Median is the most common number.
Brain fart, yes that's what I meant! And stupid phone autocorrect because I didn't mean media either. Should have paid more attention to what I was typing.
It should have said if the mean average is 33 inluding the public sector then the median average excluding it is likely still 28.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
Just says average so it will be media average and including the public sector.
If the media is 33 including the public sector then the mean being 28 within private sector seems almost certain to me.
Lost you there unless media=mean and mean=median! Median is the most common number.
Point of order, median is the middle number, mode is the most common number.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
Just says average so it will be media average and including the public sector.
If the media is 33 including the public sector then the mean being 28 within private sector seems almost certain to me.
Lost you there unless media=mean and mean=median! Median is the most common number.
Point of order, median is the middle number, mode is the most common number.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Francis Urqhart knew whereof he spoke when he said "They have the sexual appetites of goats."
Ah for those innocent days when the fornicator and adulterer Prince Charles wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Or when a previous tiny-cocked heir to the throne married a woman because she had mastered a technique to satisfy the less well endowed.
Who was that?
I’m genuinely intrigued now.
'But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward'
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
I'd agree with your latter point entirely. They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I'd guess that almost all PB'ers pay for their lunch.
Thirty five years ago, when lunchtime drinking was the norm, it was The Guinea on Bruton Place. These days it's a branch of Greggs.
I used to work round there, but we used to drink in Shepherd's Market.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Swann has said that it made a huge difference in terms of the number of lbw decisions given for off-spinners. Umpires have become convinced by the technology that they can give more of those out, when they rarely did before.
Yes, but that's subjective evidence. I had a quick look round this morning to see if there was anything more telling on the statistical side and quickly realised what a complex subject it is.
Batters appeal more and are more successful but you would expect that because in a lot of cases they know for sure when a decision is wrong, whereas there is almost invariably guesswork involved in the bowlers' appeals.
Then there is the impact on umpires which Swann rightly alludes to. Are they emboldened by the thought that DRS will put it right if they make a mistake? It used to be taken for granted that any batsmen playing forward in Australia was unlikely ever to be given out lbw. Don't think that applies any more.
Fascinating subject, worth a few PhD theses. My guess is that DRS favors the bowlers on balance, but not easy to prove.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
At my work, parking is a % of salary, which solves the problem of affordable parking for the lower paid (lowest rate is around £10/month, compared to pay and display price of £3/day; highest paid probably paying £100/month or so, professors £50+ or so)
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Francis Urqhart knew whereof he spoke when he said "They have the sexual appetites of goats."
Ah for those innocent days when the fornicator and adulterer Prince Charles wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Or when a previous tiny-cocked heir to the throne married a woman because she had mastered a technique to satisfy the less well endowed.
Who was that?
I’m genuinely intrigued now.
'But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward'
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
You must try and avoid generalisations, I wasn't frit the last time nor will be the next. I hope having experienced a reduced version of Project Fear I that you'll be loudly critical of Project Fear III when it comes around.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
You must try and avoid generalisations, I wasn't frit the last time nor will be the next. I hope having experienced a reduced version of Project Fear I that you'll be loudly critical of Project Fear III when it comes around.
You weren't personally last time, but collectively the Scots were last time.
England showed the way in overcoming Project Fear II so hopefully you can take inspiration from our success and overcome Project Fear III next time. I never supported Project Fear I or Project Fear II.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
While ignoring the fact the Mandelson is a holder of an EU pension, which carries with it certain obligations which would appear to be incompatible with the role.
And that he was fired from government three times. Why would it make any sense at all to put up someone who would likely frustrate the UK's foreign policy and trade objectives?
Mandy was fired three times, let's out up the guy who was fired once instead?
We're not going to get it, it's a political appointment and the UK is not very popular right now.
That's exactly the point - we would have had a good chance of getting a British candidate appointed if we'd nominated Mandelson. (It's not the fact that he's British as such that makes this desirable, but the facts that he's both very knowledgeable and committed to free international trade).
Nominating Liam Fox is a nonsense: he has zero chance of getting the gig. He too would have been quite a good candidate, albeit less experienced than Mandelson, but that's academic since he has no chance.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Francis Urqhart knew whereof he spoke when he said "They have the sexual appetites of goats."
Ah for those innocent days when the fornicator and adulterer Prince Charles wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Or when a previous tiny-cocked heir to the throne married a woman because she had mastered a technique to satisfy the less well endowed.
Who was that?
I’m genuinely intrigued now.
'But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward'
I hasten to add I only heard of this through reading 'The Singapore Grip'.
When I was student at L'Université d'Aix-Marseille those pros on the "senior tour" on La Canebière would reputedly employ 200g of raw liver for the same contrivance.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
What is Liam Fox viable as. Specifically..
If it comes to that, what exactly has Mandelson done to make him so amply qualified, other than always popping up in the vicinity of large sums of money, sniffing the air like a Bisto kid?
That’s a nasty comment that perpetuates antisemitic tropes.
Shame on you.
Peter Mandelson's culture and/or genealogy have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. My comment is valid as an observation on events that are a matter of public record. As for nasty, there is nastier in this thread alone.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
While ignoring the fact the Mandelson is a holder of an EU pension, which carries with it certain obligations which would appear to be incompatible with the role.
And that he was fired from government three times. Why would it make any sense at all to put up someone who would likely frustrate the UK's foreign policy and trade objectives?
Mandy was fired three times, let's out up the guy who was fired once instead?
We're not going to get it, it's a political appointment and the UK is not very popular right now.
That's exactly the point - we would have had a good chance of getting a British candidate appointed if we'd nominated Mandelson. (It's not the fact that he's British as such that makes this desirable, but the facts that he's both very knowledgeable and committed to free international trade).
Nominating Liam Fox is a nonsense: he has zero chance of getting the gig. He too would have been quite a good candidate, albeit less experienced than Mandelson, but that's academic since he has no chance.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
The brouhaha over hospital parking charges is a very good example of exactly what is wrong with this government. The problem is that the issue is complicated - as @Gallowgate and others have pointed out, there is a severe lack of capacity at many hospitals, and in the long term we want to encourage people to use public transport. That conflicts with the short-term problems of not wanting to push NHS workers onto public transport during the Covid-19 crisis, and it also conflicts with the political need to support them.
So, tricky to handle. And what does this government do? Instead of getting a grip on it, holding internal discussions to formulate a position and set up the agreed narrative to defend that position, with all Tory MPs properly kept informed, it allows the issue to spill out into the public domain in chaos, with no agreed line, gets a lot of flak, and then rapidly has to try to scrabble to repair the damage.
Chaotic bumbling, in other words. It almost makes one nostalgic for Alastair Campbell's iron grip on political messaging.
Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
Publishers should be completely free to publish racist books (that are not committing a crime). But they should also be completely free to make a decision that publishing racist books is either not commercial or just something they dont want to involved in. Racist authors might find they need to find niche publishers for their books.
Racist academics in a university sector still heavily funded by govt? No thanks.
But if he has an interesting take on history which is untainted by his racist views?
Isn’t academia poorer for not having that contribution?
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Boris is bright enough to grasp that everything Sturgeon is currently doing is designed to ramp up the differences between England and Scotland in a way that casts the English as stupid and Scotland better off away from them.
Personally I'm looking forward to more popcorn being required but working to ensure I'm sat abroad while watching.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
We should abolish GPs entirely.
What would you replace them with?
Tbf, I'd reorganise the whole health service into triage centres, general hospitals and specialist hospitals. I wrote s fairly detailed report on it a couple of years ago for a healthcare client in a consulting capacity, I'll dig it up and do an executive summary.
Sounds reasonable to me. To be honest the whole concept of the GP seems fairly antiquated. For example my consultants will address all letters to my GP instead of me, for what seems like absolutely no reason. My GP does not care, and likely does not read them unless I go to my GP for an appointment. They are entirely inconsequential once I’m in the hospital system.
Plus I wish I had the option to be emailed instead of letters being sent in the post.
I don't know what the history of parking charges for staff is - was it a PFI thing that started under Major and went made under Brown?
But it will cost somebody perhaps up to £100m a year to abolish staff parking charges.
If those are going then registered disabled people with Blue Badges shouls also no longer be charged.
I previously commented on the story of a shop keeper on the edge of a bad estate who obtained alternative law enforcement cover. Because shop lifting was effectively legalised.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
The brouhaha over hospital parking charges is a very good example of exactly what is wrong with this government. The problem is that the issue is complicated - as @Gallowgate and others have pointed out, there is a severe lack of capacity at many hospitals, and in the long term we want to encourage people to use public transport. That conflicts with the short-term problems of not wanting to push NHS workers onto public transport during the Covid-19 crisis, and it also conflicts with the political need to support them.
So, tricky to handle. And what does this government do? Instead of getting a grip on it, holding internal discussions to formulate a position and set up the agreed narrative to defend that position, with all Tory MPs properly kept informed, it allows the issue to spill out into the public domain in chaos, with no agreed line, gets a lot of flak, and then rapidly has to try to scrabble to repair the damage.
Chaotic bumbling, in other words. It almost makes one nostalgic for Alastair Campbell's iron grip on political messaging.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
I'd agree with your latter point entirely. They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
Disproportionate is one of those words that by definition is pointing out an unfairness. Of course responses shouldnt be disproportionate. Hard to argue against! It can only be challenged by real life examples as to what is proportionate.
Using Starkey as that example is seen by you and kle as problematic, I would say Rowling is an example where the twitter response is disproportionate and problematic. Are there lots of other real life prominent examples where you think there has been a disproportionate, career ending response with no forgiveness where there should have been?
Im not aware of many. On the spectrum of responses there are bound to be some disproportionately harsh and others disproportionately soft because humans arent perfect, especially when suffering from groupthink.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Swann has said that it made a huge difference in terms of the number of lbw decisions given for off-spinners. Umpires have become convinced by the technology that they can give more of those out, when they rarely did before.
It makes sense.
When it first came out I thought that the system would assist the batsmen more than the bowlers on the simple basis that they both get the same number of reviews but there are very, very limited numbers of errors for batsmen but much more ambiguity for bowlers - so the fielding team would be more likely to waste their reviews.
It doesn't seem to have worked that way.
The Laws instruct an Umpire to give the benefit of the doubt to the batter - which is reasonable since the bowler has another chance to dismiss them the next ball, but a batter in the Pavilion has no more chances. The experience of the review system has reduced that doubt.
I expected the same as you, I think because my cognitive bias made me remember the poor Umpire decisions that incorrectly gave batters out, rather than the other way round.
It's perhaps because wrong decisions stand out more than wrong non decisions.
Likewise, in non VAR football, unless it involves a goal, in which case it's equal, an offside given that should not have been is a "louder" error than one not given that should have been.
Relevant to politics too. For example, Tony Blair's mantra re Iraq that taking no action would have had a cost too. Correct - but it's easier to see the cost of the action, the money spent, lives lost, etc.
Good news for BT, Ericsson are releasing a new standalone version of 5G, it means they can build a 5G network without relying on their 4G network which is majority Huawei. It also means networks can build up 5G and switch off 3G and eventually 4G rather than spend money replacing it.
Completely unsurprising. The recent situation has created a demand for a 100% non-Huawei network.
Sounds like Ericsson are offering a 2-for-1 - get 5G and get rid of Huawei. Their price will be interesting...
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Francis Urqhart knew whereof he spoke when he said "They have the sexual appetites of goats."
Ah for those innocent days when the fornicator and adulterer Prince Charles wished he was a tampon inside Camilla Parker-Bowles.
Or when a previous tiny-cocked heir to the throne married a woman because she had mastered a technique to satisfy the less well endowed.
Who was that?
I’m genuinely intrigued now.
'But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward'
I hasten to add I only heard of this through reading 'The Singapore Grip'.
When I was student at L'Université d'Aix-Marseille those pros on the "senior tour" on La Canebière would reputedly employ 200g of raw liver for the same contrivance.
That was a Portnoy's Complaint vignette wasn't it? Let it never be said that the literary bases aren't covered on PB.
Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
Publishers should be completely free to publish racist books (that are not committing a crime). But they should also be completely free to make a decision that publishing racist books is either not commercial or just something they dont want to involved in. Racist authors might find they need to find niche publishers for their books.
Racist academics in a university sector still heavily funded by govt? No thanks.
But if he has an interesting take on history which is untainted by his racist views?
Isn’t academia poorer for not having that contribution?
No problem him contributing from a private institution with no taxpayer funding or tax benefits. Just dont expect the people he seeks to demean and belittle pay for him.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Government procurement issues occur because all Government projects follow this cycle:
1 - Set reasonable project objectives 2 - Expand objectives until they are over-ambitious in order to get them approved (otherwise they will not be deemed value for money/sufficiently ambitious/world-leading/etc) 3 - Issue Invitation to Tender 4 - Ignore all warnings on scope and/or timescale 5 - Award contract to lowest (or only) bid (NB - Must be a British firm) 6 - Costs and/or schedule increase to meet the expanded objectives 7 - Staff change 8 - Finally get around to consulting the end users 9 - Change requirements 10 - Supplier realises they are overcommitted thanks to the above 11 - Customer realises supplier is overcommitted 12 - Change staff 13 - Change requirements again 14 - Costs and schedules increase due to requirements changing yet again 15 - Project failing. Hailed as a success 16 - Cut schedule by bypassing testing 17 - Change staff 18 - Project now so obviously failing it cannot be hailed as a success 19 - Carry out blamestorming. Find an easy and plausible blame 20 - Start new project. Set reasonable project objectives 21 - see (2) and subsequent above.
If you don't follow the above, you are in violation of Value For Money requirements and will be fired.
In fairness, he says nothing about there being any suggestion that Germans shouldn't criticize China once they are safely out of Hong Kong.
One rather suspects that the German Government simply doesn't want its people being disappeared off to the mainland for show trials and condemned to die a horrible, lonely death in a Chinese prison. Which is understandable.
Interesting chat yesterday with a BNO HK chap married to English girl. He reckons that his brothers will migrate as a reult, parents staying in HK. Brothers will stay in Asia though, probably Singapore for reasons of food, climate and economy. 8nteresting that he put food first in his reasons. Cantonese live to eat it seems.
Very sad to hear the plight of those in HK, who thought until recently that they were living in the oasis of sanity and democracy in an otherwise autocratic and totalitarian state.
Given the speed with which the Chinese have started to enforce the new security law, there's now likely to be a severe brain drain from HK, to the benefit of other nations in the wider region and indeed the world.
Hopefully the generous offer from the UK government, holding up their side of the 1997 deal, will lead to the UK benefitting both directly and indirectly from being seen as a good actor.
People are quite willing to tolerate, even migrate to totalitarian countries, with no freedom of speech, democracy or civil rights, and an active secret police provide they make money by doing so. Just look at the number of Brits who move to the Gulf States.
They have the advantage of being able to leave.
What was the old soviet joke?
Drink like a Russian, eat like a Frenchmen, make love like an Italian. Leave like an American.
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Why do you class Mandelson as an opponent, and not anyone from a foreign country who will absolutely not have our best interests at heart?
Good on him. Defence procurement has been a very expensive shambles for decades, whilst being a very cosy revolving door gig in industry for former civil servants and brass hats.
Should be very high on the list for a turning upside-down by the government.
There have been some improvement - mainly in not adding "features" to stuff we are buying from abroad. My favourite on this one was the Airseeker flying suit thing.
See squealing in the Defense column in the Telegraph about "Not supporting industry".
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Not sure if he's correct on the divorce element but Scrimshaw has an interesting turn of phrase.
'This divorce will be fairly clean, I think, because there’s no real battle for the soul of Scotland any more. Far from a bitter divorce over an affair with a long, drawn out custody battle, this will be a fairly straightforward division of assets and liabilities, the kind you get when the husband finally admits he’s gay and everyone just realizes this is what needs to happen. Scotland is gone, the Union is dead, and 2019 was probably the last election where Scottish voters sent MPs to Westminster. Vive l’Ecosse Libre.'
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Does it have a multi-storey car park, that seems to be the solution. If Asda can have one then I don't see why the hospital can't.
The Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle city centre has both a multi-storey car park AND a normal one purely for patients and under normal circumstances they are both full. Like @Philip_Thompson said, one in, one out. I usually go at 8am, hours before my appointment, simply to get a space and have a coffee.
Staff have to park in the west-end and get a bus to the hospital, although I understand this fills up quickly too.
Solution is definitely to build downwards and upwards.
We can use the local Park 'n Ride. Special minibus service car-park to hospital. Takes about 10 minutes. Pretty always full of pensioners.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Quite. Those who argue otherwise are simultaneously furiously denying Mandelson's remain background will influence his decisions, whilst at the same time furiously asserting that his British background will influence his decisions. By the way, has Mandelson been lobbying the British Government for their support? The article I read suggests he has not done so, but has lobbied other world governments. If that is the case, it hardly suggests cordial intentions.
By the way, I don't really think Liam Fox is an appropriate pick either. Besides which, as MaxPB suggests, this is probably not a battle the UK can win. It might be better to support a favourable overseas candidate.
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Not flabbergasted at all
Given a choice, BoZo and Cummings reliably pick the worst of all possible options, to the detriment of their stated aims.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Quote often attributed to the DoY from his long stint at RNAS Culdrose: "Fanny has no face."
ie he would shag anything and had, what was known in the FAA as, "tremendous cock range".
I remember reading articles about Prince Andrew's sex obsession in Private Eye when Andrew was still at school; basically no chambermaid was safe with him. The Eye claimed Brenda (The Queen) was very worried and thinking about taking him to see a psychiatrist. Either the appointment was never made or the psychiatrist was no use.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Why do you class Mandelson as an opponent, and not anyone from a foreign country who will absolutely not have our best interests at heart?
That's fucked up.
He's Labour and he's fanatically opposed to the elected government's program.
Would you expect the SNP to nominate a Tory? Would you expect the Democrats to nominate a Trumpist GOP TEA Party fanatic?
That's fucked up.
If your logic is that we can't trust foreigners then that's both fucked up and xenophobic and implies we should cut all ties with foreign organisations. Is that your logic?
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Well of course no sane President is going to appoint a Trumpist to anything. One looks for competence and relavant experience.
A better example is Obama appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
I'd agree with your latter point entirely. They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
Disproportionate is one of those words that by definition is pointing out an unfairness. Of course responses shouldnt be disproportionate. Hard to argue against! It can only be challenged by real life examples as to what is proportionate.
Using Starkey as that example is seen by you and kle as problematic....
That is to misunderstand me. I thought there was a reasonable case to act on Starkey's plainly racist outburst.
Of course people will disagree on what is reasonable or proportionate and what isn't, and I wouldn't insist on my own view. Whether Starkey's comment amounted to gross misconduct justifying dismissal, or whether it merited a warning, might in other circumstances be justiciable - but it looks as though none of the consequences he suffered will be contested by him.
My point it that there will be widely different views across society on what is reasonable and proportionate, just as there will be wildly different views on what constitutes acceptable speech. And I err on the side of tolerance of the expression of views with which I vehemently disagree.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Lol - you think the person appointed won't be your opponent? Better to have one of ours telling us how the world works than one of theirs. There is no winner here - what we want doesn't exist. We're going to be put down - Mandy would have done it gently, whomever ends up with the gig that isn't Mandy will do it brutally.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
I was getting 28 days *INCLUDING* bank holidays in a previous job. The statutory minimum.
Outside the cushy public sector that's all most people get I suspect.
In my experience you get 25 days + bank holidays quite often.
However 20 days + bank holidays is not uncommon. People who work in the public sector do not seem to realise this...
That's the legal minimum. Entitlement rising with service to 30 days + BH is still relatively common in larger companies and the public sector. Foxy's 33 days suggests the NHS still has the old public sector privilege days on top.
My experience of working in both the public and private sectors is that the public sector got the extra holiday instead of the pay rises that you get in the private sector.
The brouhaha over hospital parking charges is a very good example of exactly what is wrong with this government. The problem is that the issue is complicated - as @Gallowgate and others have pointed out, there is a severe lack of capacity at many hospitals, and in the long term we want to encourage people to use public transport. That conflicts with the short-term problems of not wanting to push NHS workers onto public transport during the Covid-19 crisis, and it also conflicts with the political need to support them.
So, tricky to handle. And what does this government do? Instead of getting a grip on it, holding internal discussions to formulate a position and set up the agreed narrative to defend that position, with all Tory MPs properly kept informed, it allows the issue to spill out into the public domain in chaos, with no agreed line, gets a lot of flak, and then rapidly has to try to scrabble to repair the damage.
Chaotic bumbling, in other words. It almost makes one nostalgic for Alastair Campbell's iron grip on political messaging.
The issue will be severely eased, if perhaps not solved, by modal shift.
My local hospital, where I'm currently visiting far too frequently, has a goal (started in 2018) to increase their cycling / walking travel share by staff from 7% to 12%, which is a start. But most of the infrastructure is of 1970s quality ie half a century out of date.
One of my needs is to get rid of literally hundreds of "A" barriers that keep bikes and wheelchairs off cycle paths.
I don't see that much change can be made to public transport except a gradual recovery over 1-2 years as we get through Corona.
However at present there is 1-2 bn of funding available for rapid change.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Lol - you think the person appointed won't be your opponent? Better to have one of ours telling us how the world works than one of theirs. There is no winner here - what we want doesn't exist. We're going to be put down - Mandy would have done it gently, whomever ends up with the gig that isn't Mandy will do it brutally.
If that is going to happen then I'd rather we not have ties to whoever does that so we can stand up to them and say no.
Rather than be "put down" by someone we nominated ourselves. Why would we want that? 🤦🏻♂️
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Quite. Those who argue otherwise are simultaneously furiously denying Mandelson's remain background will influence his decisions, whilst at the same time furiously asserting that his British background will influence his decisions. By the way, has Mandelson been lobbying the British Government for their support? The article I read suggests he has not done so, but has lobbied other world governments. If that is the case, it hardly suggests cordial intentions.
By the way, I don't really think Liam Fox is an appropriate pick either. Besides which, as MaxPB suggests, this is probably not a battle the UK can win. It might be better to support a favourable overseas candidate.
There are no favourable overseas candidates. We went into this insistent that we'd dictate terms to other people and if that failed GATT24 would preserve our current terms. Now that both have failed and we're going to be shish-kebabed surely its better to have someone running the show who doesn't want to see the UK crushed. Which is what we will get - someone will be happy to let the WTO run fairly and thats the UK utterly sunk.
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Well of course no sane President is going to appoint a Trumpist to anything. One looks for competence and relavant experience.
A better example is Obama appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.
Most people pick the best available person for the job, Boris however picks whichever mate is interested regardless of their actual qualifications and experience.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
I'd agree with your latter point entirely. They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
Bet that was because Rowling signed it. Judgement by association rather than content. Bit sad.
A sort of mirror - although not quite the same - of a few days ago where she posted a fulsome tribute to Stephen King and then deleted it when she found out his views on the transgender debate were not to her liking.
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Well of course no sane President is going to appoint a Trumpist to anything. One looks for competence and relavant experience.
A better example is Obama appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.
Was Jon Huntsman actively opposing Obama's foreign policy to China at the time he was appointed?
Mandelson is actively opposing British trade policy and we're supposed to be nominating him in what universe exactly?
Chaotic bumbling, in other words. It almost makes one nostalgic for Alastair Campbell's iron grip on political messaging.
But Cummings is supposed to be the master, not just of rigid message discipline but strategic planning and innovative solutions.
It's almost as though he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and just got lucky...
Maybe lucky - but also pushing the boundaries of what's moral in campaigning.
There have always been dodgy practices, but compared to somewhere like the US, all the main parties have been pretty restrained. His biggest success is understanding how weak/outdated the rules are around election campaigns in the UK, and exploiting them.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I'd guess that almost all PB'ers pay for their lunch.
Thirty five years ago, when lunchtime drinking was the norm, it was The Guinea on Bruton Place. These days it's a branch of Greggs.
When I started out on my higher education teaching career we had a separate canteen with subsidised prices. This was then abolished but we could eat in the student union. Most people chose to eat (and drink) in the local pub. Towards the end we all had a sandwich at our desk. Parking was limited to the senior staff - the rest had to use a public carpark. Luckily for me I was an elected councillor for many years and got a parking space in a council car park next to my work place.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Quite. Those who argue otherwise are simultaneously furiously denying Mandelson's remain background will influence his decisions, whilst at the same time furiously asserting that his British background will influence his decisions. By the way, has Mandelson been lobbying the British Government for their support? The article I read suggests he has not done so, but has lobbied other world governments. If that is the case, it hardly suggests cordial intentions.
By the way, I don't really think Liam Fox is an appropriate pick either. Besides which, as MaxPB suggests, this is probably not a battle the UK can win. It might be better to support a favourable overseas candidate.
There are no favourable overseas candidates. We went into this insistent that we'd dictate terms to other people and if that failed GATT24 would preserve our current terms. Now that both have failed and we're going to be shish-kebabed surely its better to have someone running the show who doesn't want to see the UK crushed. Which is what we will get - someone will be happy to let the WTO run fairly and thats the UK utterly sunk.
No.
If someone wants to crush us then better to have a PM uninvolved with that person and prepared to say "f**k you" and walk away.
But Mandelson doesn't reflect the UK so why should we nominate him? He's Labour and stands against what the government is standing for.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
It doesn't matter what "the government is standing for" when that is laughable unworkable bollocks. The notion was simple - We Dictate. Then when that didn't work it was - Go WTO GATT24 will let us Dictate. Then the head of the WTO pissed his pants laughing at how stupid we are. Now there's a vacancy at the top of the WTO.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
I would rather have a foreigner than Peter Mandelson in the WTO. I'm not so nationalist that I'd support my own opponent because he's from my own country.
Lol - you think the person appointed won't be your opponent? Better to have one of ours telling us how the world works than one of theirs. There is no winner here - what we want doesn't exist. We're going to be put down - Mandy would have done it gently, whomever ends up with the gig that isn't Mandy will do it brutally.
If that is going to happen then I'd rather we not have ties to whoever does that so we can stand up to them and say no.
Rather than be "put down" by someone we nominated ourselves. Why would we want that? 🤦🏻♂️
OK. We stand up them and say no. They then say "yes" point to both the current rules operating in the WTO and the support from dozens of countries happy to use us as a fulcrum to get things they want.
The WTO is where the UK goes to get crushed. We expect everyone else to give us preferential terms. Everyone else would have to agree to those terms and have already said they won't. GATT24 doesn't do what Davids Davies etc say it does. We're going to find this out one way or another, apparently we want the hard way...
I'm curious if all those pretending to be flabbergasted that a Conservative Brexiteer government hasn't nominated Labour's Eurofanatic Peter Mandelson would be equally shocked if an elected Joe Biden didn't nominate a Trumpist who had served in the Trump government and was a lifelong Republican to a comparable post?
Jacques Chirac agreed to nominate the Socialist Pascal Lamy after initially being opposed.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
I was getting 28 days *INCLUDING* bank holidays in a previous job. The statutory minimum.
Outside the cushy public sector that's all most people get I suspect.
In my experience you get 25 days + bank holidays quite often.
However 20 days + bank holidays is not uncommon. People who work in the public sector do not seem to realise this...
That's the legal minimum. Entitlement rising with service to 30 days + BH is still relatively common in larger companies and the public sector. Foxy's 33 days suggests the NHS still has the old public sector privilege days on top.
My experience of working in both the public and private sectors is that the public sector got the extra holiday instead of the pay rises that you get in the private sector.
That was what the union rep told me when I joined the NHS.
Comments
Here are the brief notes I took on three example papers.
Jesús Fernández-Villaverde and Chad Jones use the standard SIRD epidemiological model to which they add behavioural feedback.
https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/sird-paper.pdf
John Cochrane takes this further, in particular by assuming that people attempt to reduce their contacts in proportion to the chance of getting the disease but with lack of testing they do so in response to the current death rate. He shows that this greatly improves the fit to what we have observed compared to the basic epidemiological model. Then he shows that we can understand the effect of policy interventions (social distancing, relaxation etc) as impinging on the predictions by affecting key behavioural parameters. He argues that good information on how many people are infected in one's local area would be really helpful to avoid waves of infections, and that widespread testing available (no protocol, no prescription, just go get it, free market) would radically reduce the economic costs of social distancing, and end the epidemic fast.
https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/05/an-sir-model-with-behavior.html
On Cochrane’s to do list is to derive his assumed behavioural responses from a maximization problem, and consider the tradeoff between more distancing and economic costs. This is what David Meenagh and Patrick Minford attempt in “A structural model of corona virus behaviour for testing on data behaviour”
http://carbsecon.com/wp/E2020_4.pdf
In fact they assume optimising behaviour on the part of both the virus (based on evolutionary biology) and the optimising behaviour of households. Comparing the UK with Sweden they find “that the UK lockdown was no more effective in reducing deaths than the Swedish reliance on voluntary socially aware behaviour, whereas the economic cost of the UK policy was enormously bigger.” Interestingly they also find that “herd immunity” is attained at a much lower level of infection (7%) than the pure epidemiological model (60%) because of the behavioural response to the epidemic.
Staff have to park in the west-end and get a bus to the hospital, although I understand this fills up quickly too.
Solution is definitely to build downwards and upwards.
When it first came out I thought that the system would assist the batsmen more than the bowlers on the simple basis that they both get the same number of reviews but there are very, very limited numbers of errors for batsmen but much more ambiguity for bowlers - so the fielding team would be more likely to waste their reviews.
It doesn't seem to have worked that way.
We're not going to get it, it's a political appointment and the UK is not very popular right now.
1. No contract is absolute and there are no alternative uses for their PFI building should they refuse
2. The consortia who hold them bank on debt as income. Imperil the income and the value collapses.
3. The private sector understands hard ball renegotiation of contracts.
Tell hospital trusts that they are to buy their bulbs wholesale and to stick an upper deck on all their carparks. Let the PFI loons try to enforce their contract if they dare.
Back in the 70s/80s politics was about things like unemployment, inflation, interest rates and crime.
Britain was a much better place in the mid 2010s on all those measures.
But the media sell more papers on "we're all going to hell in a handcart" than "things are actually quite a bit better than they used to be".
So politics became about culture instead of economics.
Id guess including public sector and mean but dont know. And they think 1.2 million were illegally getting 0 days so not sure if that is included in their average either. Its in line with 5 weeks plus bank holidays as the most common, with minimum statutory holiday another frequent choice.
I expected the same as you, I think because my cognitive bias made me remember the poor Umpire decisions that incorrectly gave batters out, rather than the other way round.
If the media is 33 including the public sector then the mean being 28 within private sector seems almost certain to me.
Edfit: also, the original announcement specifically refers to use in the new school year - after the children return on 11 August.
ie he would shag anything and had, what was known in the FAA as, "tremendous cock range".
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1280747032437809152?s=20
It should have said if the mean average is 33 inluding the public sector then the median average excluding it is likely still 28.
I’m genuinely intrigued now.
https://tinyurl.com/ycbuhoao
I hasten to add I only heard of this through reading 'The Singapore Grip'.
They key word in the letter was 'disproportionate'. These things will, I suspect, find some reasonable balance in time, but for now so pushback against disproportionate responses is entirely warranted.
I post this without further comment...
https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1280646907065499649?s=20
You used to drink in Shepherd Market.
Batters appeal more and are more successful but you would expect that because in a lot of cases they know for sure when a decision is wrong, whereas there is almost invariably guesswork involved in the bowlers' appeals.
Then there is the impact on umpires which Swann rightly alludes to. Are they emboldened by the thought that DRS will put it right if they make a mistake? It used to be taken for granted that any batsmen playing forward in Australia was unlikely ever to be given out lbw. Don't think that applies any more.
Fascinating subject, worth a few PhD theses. My guess is that DRS favors the bowlers on balance, but not easy to prove.
Thank you.
England showed the way in overcoming Project Fear II so hopefully you can take inspiration from our success and overcome Project Fear III next time. I never supported Project Fear I or Project Fear II.
Nominating Liam Fox is a nonsense: he has zero chance of getting the gig. He too would have been quite a good candidate, albeit less experienced than Mandelson, but that's academic since he has no chance.
Which would be just once more than Liam Fox.
That's like saying Labour could win if they only nominate Boris Johnson to be PM. If we had a Labour government maybe they could nominate Mandelson.
https://twitter.com/LeanTossup/status/1279712823942221824?s=09
And I'm not talking about sexual positions.
So, tricky to handle. And what does this government do? Instead of getting a grip on it, holding internal discussions to formulate a position and set up the agreed narrative to defend that position, with all Tory MPs properly kept informed, it allows the issue to spill out into the public domain in chaos, with no agreed line, gets a lot of flak, and then rapidly has to try to scrabble to repair the damage.
Chaotic bumbling, in other words. It almost makes one nostalgic for Alastair Campbell's iron grip on political messaging.
Isn’t academia poorer for not having that contribution?
Personally I'm looking forward to more popcorn being required but working to ensure I'm sat abroad while watching.
But it will cost somebody perhaps up to £100m a year to abolish staff parking charges.
If those are going then registered disabled people with Blue Badges shouls also no longer be charged.
Do we (a) want someone who thinks we made a mistake but will do his best to arbitrate in a way that doesn't completely shaft us, or (b) someone who knows we are idiots and will step aside to let reality smash us to pieces?
WTO is a nonsense non-plan. There's still people on Twitter insistent that there doesn't need to be any border disruption because we can go WTO. Once reality empties their supermarket shelves there will be hell to pay, and I expect Peter Simper Simper Mandelson to do every round of interviews possible to add realism to the bullshit desperation spin blaming the EU/WTO/Unions/Teddy for the mess.
Using Starkey as that example is seen by you and kle as problematic, I would say Rowling is an example where the twitter response is disproportionate and problematic. Are there lots of other real life prominent examples where you think there has been a disproportionate, career ending response with no forgiveness where there should have been?
Im not aware of many. On the spectrum of responses there are bound to be some disproportionately harsh and others disproportionately soft because humans arent perfect, especially when suffering from groupthink.
Likewise, in non VAR football, unless it involves a goal, in which case it's equal, an offside given that should not have been is a "louder" error than one not given that should have been.
Relevant to politics too. For example, Tony Blair's mantra re Iraq that taking no action would have had a cost too. Correct - but it's easier to see the cost of the action, the money spent, lives lost, etc.
Sounds like Ericsson are offering a 2-for-1 - get 5G and get rid of Huawei. Their price will be interesting...
1 - Set reasonable project objectives
2 - Expand objectives until they are over-ambitious in order to get them approved (otherwise they will not be deemed value for money/sufficiently ambitious/world-leading/etc)
3 - Issue Invitation to Tender
4 - Ignore all warnings on scope and/or timescale
5 - Award contract to lowest (or only) bid (NB - Must be a British firm)
6 - Costs and/or schedule increase to meet the expanded objectives
7 - Staff change
8 - Finally get around to consulting the end users
9 - Change requirements
10 - Supplier realises they are overcommitted thanks to the above
11 - Customer realises supplier is overcommitted
12 - Change staff
13 - Change requirements again
14 - Costs and schedules increase due to requirements changing yet again
15 - Project failing. Hailed as a success
16 - Cut schedule by bypassing testing
17 - Change staff
18 - Project now so obviously failing it cannot be hailed as a success
19 - Carry out blamestorming. Find an easy and plausible blame
20 - Start new project. Set reasonable project objectives
21 - see (2) and subsequent above.
If you don't follow the above, you are in violation of Value For Money requirements and will be fired.
What was the old soviet joke?
Drink like a Russian, eat like a Frenchmen, make love like an Italian. Leave like an American.
It's almost as though he isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and just got lucky...
That's fucked up.
See squealing in the Defense column in the Telegraph about "Not supporting industry".
'This divorce will be fairly clean, I think, because there’s no real battle for the soul of Scotland any more. Far from a bitter divorce over an affair with a long, drawn out custody battle, this will be a fairly straightforward division of assets and liabilities, the kind you get when the husband finally admits he’s gay and everyone just realizes this is what needs to happen. Scotland is gone, the Union is dead, and 2019 was probably the last election where Scottish voters sent MPs to Westminster. Vive l’Ecosse Libre.'
By the way, I don't really think Liam Fox is an appropriate pick either. Besides which, as MaxPB suggests, this is probably not a battle the UK can win. It might be better to support a favourable overseas candidate.
Given a choice, BoZo and Cummings reliably pick the worst of all possible options, to the detriment of their stated aims.
Would you expect the SNP to nominate a Tory?
Would you expect the Democrats to nominate a Trumpist GOP TEA Party fanatic?
That's fucked up.
If your logic is that we can't trust foreigners then that's both fucked up and xenophobic and implies we should cut all ties with foreign organisations. Is that your logic?
A better example is Obama appointing Jon Huntsman as Ambassador to China.
I thought there was a reasonable case to act on Starkey's plainly racist outburst.
Of course people will disagree on what is reasonable or proportionate and what isn't, and I wouldn't insist on my own view. Whether Starkey's comment amounted to gross misconduct justifying dismissal, or whether it merited a warning, might in other circumstances be justiciable - but it looks as though none of the consequences he suffered will be contested by him.
My point it that there will be widely different views across society on what is reasonable and proportionate, just as there will be wildly different views on what constitutes acceptable speech. And I err on the side of tolerance of the expression of views with which I vehemently disagree.
I could actually see a new alternate trade system being launched in the next decade if the WTO continues to let China get away with everything.
My local hospital, where I'm currently visiting far too frequently, has a goal (started in 2018) to increase their cycling / walking travel share by staff from 7% to 12%, which is a start. But most of the infrastructure is of 1970s quality ie half a century out of date.
One of my needs is to get rid of literally hundreds of "A" barriers that keep bikes and wheelchairs off cycle paths.
I don't see that much change can be made to public transport except a gradual recovery over 1-2 years as we get through Corona.
However at present there is 1-2 bn of funding available for rapid change.
Why not make some proposals?
Here is my page of FOIs which I am using as a basis:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/matt_wardman/requests
Totally agree on the Boris Comms Chaos.
Rather than be "put down" by someone we nominated ourselves. Why would we want that? 🤦🏻♂️
If you say Jack-Gove really quickly...
A sort of mirror - although not quite the same - of a few days ago where she posted a fulsome tribute to Stephen King and then deleted it when she found out his views on the transgender debate were not to her liking.
Mandelson is actively opposing British trade policy and we're supposed to be nominating him in what universe exactly?
There have always been dodgy practices, but compared to somewhere like the US, all the main parties have been pretty restrained. His biggest success is understanding how weak/outdated the rules are around election campaigns in the UK, and exploiting them.
If someone wants to crush us then better to have a PM uninvolved with that person and prepared to say "f**k you" and walk away.
The WTO is where the UK goes to get crushed. We expect everyone else to give us preferential terms. Everyone else would have to agree to those terms and have already said they won't. GATT24 doesn't do what Davids Davies etc say it does. We're going to find this out one way or another, apparently we want the hard way...
New thread