Mr. Thompson, as a sentence "Black lives matter" is perfectly reasonable.
As a group "Black Lives Matter" is a collection of far left lunatics who have been complacently indulged by people who think a marketing slogan is some sort of gospel truth.
Well it is 26% due to rounding and it is 'Neither support nor oppose.'
And that, I suspect, is a lot of people unprepared to give their true opinion, which is therefore unlikely to be positive.
The fact that 30% do not think the protests should have happened NOW, and 38% actually think they should NEVER happen, suggests a large reservoir of quiet disapproval.
Will footballers and cricketers continue to take the knee before every match until full racial equality has been achieved?
Seems like a good idea.
How would you define "full racial equality"?
Well for starters no more monkey chants or other racism in football stadia.
That crap was almost completely cleared from British football many years ago. Thankfully. You still get the odd idiot who might hiss at Spurs, but it is a tiny minority.
If that is your metric then I'd say it is job done.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
A friend of mine who supplies medical equipment to hospitals and health centres in the West Midlands said this morning that things are still pretty bad in Walsall and Halesowen. The figures don’t appear to bear this out though.
Medical equipment would suggest people in hospital? As in numbers of long term cases with bad effects?
That is a possibility. I didn’t probe deeply into what he meant by it. But he did compare Walsall to Leicester.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
A big mystery is the fact that in the 60s and 70s people consumed more calories than they do today but were much thinner.
Not that much of a mystery if you think how many calories a coal miner would have consumed during a shift, for instance. Cars are the main reason are fat, alongside sugar in processed and fast food. People in London are much less fat than people in the rest of the country, because they drive less and walk/cycle more. It's also a crowd thing - if you are surrounded by overweight people, you are more likely to become overweight, because you feel under less pressure not to. Being overweight/obese has achieved critical mass (no pun intended) in the general population. It's not about body shaming people, but it is a public health disaster and I think it is quite sad in terms of the cost to people's general happiness and wellbeing.
Yes, that's very persuasive. Even IF fat people cost us less than slim people, in health care (I have my doubts) obesity is just a BAD thing, it is bad for self image, mental health, physical health, everything.
Go to Las Vegas and watch hideously obese Americans eating multiple burgers and foot long burritos. They do not look happy. They are not Falstaffian.
I agree. I am very doubtful about the cost argument - it is years of ill-health that costs the NHS, not people living a long (but healthy) life. I think a society full of unhealthy overweight people is a society that has something deeply wrong with it. Look at the States, there is something obviously messed up about the place. We are heading down the same path. Anglo Saxon capitalism makes people ill. Long hours, stress, convenience food, crappy public transport, bad urban planning, too much advertising, family unfriendly culture, hyper-individualism, it's all connected and is all contributing to a miserable and unhealthy, inactive population.
Given that the Soviet Union in its later years had falling life expectancy (one of the few countries in the world that did at that time) due to the shockingly unhealthy lifestyles of its inhabitants, you might want to blame ill health on something other than ‘Anglo Saxon capitalism.’
It's not much better under Putin.
The striking thing is the gender gap
Life expectancy of women in Russia: 77 Life expectancy of men in Russia: 66
A big mystery is the fact that in the 60s and 70s people consumed more calories than they do today but were much thinner.
Not that much of a mystery if you think how many calories a coal miner would have consumed during a shift, for instance. Cars are the main reason are fat, alongside sugar in processed and fast food. People in London are much less fat than people in the rest of the country, because they drive less and walk/cycle more. It's also a crowd thing - if you are surrounded by overweight people, you are more likely to become overweight, because you feel under less pressure not to. Being overweight/obese has achieved critical mass (no pun intended) in the general population. It's not about body shaming people, but it is a public health disaster and I think it is quite sad in terms of the cost to people's general happiness and wellbeing.
Yes, that's very persuasive. Even IF fat people cost us less than slim people, in health care (I have my doubts) obesity is just a BAD thing, it is bad for self image, mental health, physical health, everything.
Go to Las Vegas and watch hideously obese Americans eating multiple burgers and foot long burritos. They do not look happy. They are not Falstaffian.
I agree. I am very doubtful about the cost argument - it is years of ill-health that costs the NHS, not people living a long (but healthy) life. I think a society full of unhealthy overweight people is a society that has something deeply wrong with it. Look at the States, there is something obviously messed up about the place. We are heading down the same path. Anglo Saxon capitalism makes people ill. Long hours, stress, convenience food, crappy public transport, bad urban planning, too much advertising, family unfriendly culture, hyper-individualism, it's all connected and is all contributing to a miserable and unhealthy, inactive population.
Given that the Soviet Union in its later years had falling life expectancy (one of the few countries in the world that did at that time) due to the shockingly unhealthy lifestyles of its inhabitants, you might want to blame ill health on something other than ‘Anglo Saxon capitalism.’
It's not much better under Putin.
The striking thing is the gender gap
Life expectancy of women in Russia: 77 Life expectancy of men in Russia: 66
What action will they take against obese NHS workers ?
Over the years I've seen some grossly overweight people in NHS uniforms and thought it was a terrible example to set.
To be expected when people are working 12 hour shifts on poor wages. Why cook yourself a healthy meal when you get home from your shift when you can eat a kebab from the chippie?
Poor wages ? LOL
Not to mention that food is much cheaper to buy and cook yourself compared with grotty takeaways.
And what do they do on all their days off ?
Or that some of the fatties I've seen look like they're both cooking at home and going to the grotty takeaways.
Your lack of empathy is something else.
It doesn’t matter that food is cheaper to cook yourself. What matters is convenience. I find it difficult to be arsed to cook after coming home from a 9-5, never-mind a 8-8, or longer.
Its called taking some responsibility for yourself - most people do it, PB is full of anecdotes about diet and fitness regimes, so why not fat slobs as well.
If obesity is such a major health and social problem, and I agree that it is, then the NHS should be setting an example.
I'm not complaining about people who are overweight or drink too many units but those who are grossly obese.
Calling people “fat slobs” is not a way to motivate someone to be healthier.
There’s a culture in the NHS, and in many other jobs, of everyone bringing in cake, chocolate, sweets all the time to eat at lunch time etc. That’s on top of the difficulty of making healthy choices when you’re exhausted - something thats exacerbated by unhealthiness.
Just because you manage to make “health choices” doesn’t mean someone else is weak or lazy because they don’t.
A fat slob is still a fat slob whether they're called it or not.
People have the freedom to make their own choices but they have to take the responsibility for what the consequences are.
Excessive and inappropriate drinking and smoking are now not tolerated and have restrictions places upon them.
If obesity is now to be the focus of public health action then we need to consider what action is to be taken to reduce it.
And we need to accept that includes the stick as well as carrots.
Nobody is saying people have the freedom to make their own choices. Why are you trying to turn this into an argument that nobody is having?
Even if you recognise the need for people to take responsibility for themselves, we as a society can still make it easier for people to make the right choices.
My old employer completely refurbished the office and dining environment with a partial aim to help people eat healthier. They started providing free fruit, removed many unhealthy choices from vending machines, and gave employees much more fridge space and cooking facilities. People started eating more “proper meals” at lunch time rather than chocolate and snacks. It really worked.
Its called opening up a discussion on a current issue.
Now giving incentives, help and advice to adopt a more healthy lifestyle are good things.
But active discouragements are also needed - taxes on the 'wrong' food or recruitment policies which penalise unhealthy lifestyles.
And given its relevance of the issue to it I think the NHS has a responsibility to lead by example.
Yes, staff obesity is an issue. Particularly noticeable with the nursing staff. Too many chocolates and biscuits as presents! A lot of Trusts, including my own have positive policies aimed at health staff. In the end, it is up to individuals though.
British cops tend to be lard-arses as well. Presumably it is the same kind of culture. Doughnuts at work, junk food at the end of the shift.
My work people bring in cake, I just don't eat it. It isn't that difficult or if you wish to join in cut a small slice rather than half the cake as some work colleagues seem to do usually the same ones that say "I don't know why I keep putting on weight I eat like a fly"
If you cannot resist the temptation of a workplace cake then you weren't going to maintain discipline anyway, same as being able to say no to a beer after work.
Saying no to a beer after work is dead easy, going for a drink with my colleagues would be as fun as going out with a posse of ed milibrands
Not much "Ally McBeal" going on in your world then.
But seriously, say No a few times and they should stop asking.
If they don't it's workplace bullying and should be reported.
But I could also probably report them for work place bullying if they invite the whole team but not me....
See thats HR bollocks right there at work. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is where your wokeism gets you eventually
As to Ally McBeal well anyone that tries for a date with anyone at work is in my mind absolutely mad....the possibilities for being reported to hr are endless there. I would be interested to see how the statistics on finding your spouse have work have changed since the 90's. Most guys I know would bite their hand off rather than make a comment to a female colleague that could be even vaguely thought of as flirtatious
Well I was seduced at work by my (now) 2nd wife. So I'm all in favour.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
A friend of mine who supplies medical equipment to hospitals and health centres in the West Midlands said this morning that things are still pretty bad in Walsall and Halesowen. The figures don’t appear to bear this out though.
Medical equipment would suggest people in hospital? As in numbers of long term cases with bad effects?
FWIW the latest stats would suggest that either there aren't that many of them in that area, or the remaining Covid patients in hospital are very unevenly distributed around the country.
Covid patients in hospital are now below 1500, and the ventilator occupancy total is only just into three figures.
Mr. Thompson, as a sentence "Black lives matter" is perfectly reasonable.
As a group "Black Lives Matter" is a collection of far left lunatics who have been complacently indulged by people who think a marketing slogan is some sort of gospel truth.
BLM as an organisation are by and large irrelevant. Can anyone name any of their spokespeople without Googling?
BLM as a meme has however caught the zeitgeist. There is a widespread international recognition that systemic racism has not gone away, even though often it is more subtle than in the USA.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
What action will they take against obese NHS workers ?
Over the years I've seen some grossly overweight people in NHS uniforms and thought it was a terrible example to set.
To be expected when people are working 12 hour shifts on poor wages. Why cook yourself a healthy meal when you get home from your shift when you can eat a kebab from the chippie?
Poor wages ? LOL
Not to mention that food is much cheaper to buy and cook yourself compared with grotty takeaways.
And what do they do on all their days off ?
Or that some of the fatties I've seen look like they're both cooking at home and going to the grotty takeaways.
Your lack of empathy is something else.
It doesn’t matter that food is cheaper to cook yourself. What matters is convenience. I find it difficult to be arsed to cook after coming home from a 9-5, never-mind a 8-8, or longer.
Its called taking some responsibility for yourself - most people do it, PB is full of anecdotes about diet and fitness regimes, so why not fat slobs as well.
If obesity is such a major health and social problem, and I agree that it is, then the NHS should be setting an example.
I'm not complaining about people who are overweight or drink too many units but those who are grossly obese.
Calling people “fat slobs” is not a way to motivate someone to be healthier.
There’s a culture in the NHS, and in many other jobs, of everyone bringing in cake, chocolate, sweets all the time to eat at lunch time etc. That’s on top of the difficulty of making healthy choices when you’re exhausted - something thats exacerbated by unhealthiness.
Just because you manage to make “health choices” doesn’t mean someone else is weak or lazy because they don’t.
A fat slob is still a fat slob whether they're called it or not.
People have the freedom to make their own choices but they have to take the responsibility for what the consequences are.
Excessive and inappropriate drinking and smoking are now not tolerated and have restrictions places upon them.
If obesity is now to be the focus of public health action then we need to consider what action is to be taken to reduce it.
And we need to accept that includes the stick as well as carrots.
Nobody is saying people have the freedom to make their own choices. Why are you trying to turn this into an argument that nobody is having?
Even if you recognise the need for people to take responsibility for themselves, we as a society can still make it easier for people to make the right choices.
My old employer completely refurbished the office and dining environment with a partial aim to help people eat healthier. They started providing free fruit, removed many unhealthy choices from vending machines, and gave employees much more fridge space and cooking facilities. People started eating more “proper meals” at lunch time rather than chocolate and snacks. It really worked.
Its called opening up a discussion on a current issue.
Now giving incentives, help and advice to adopt a more healthy lifestyle are good things.
But active discouragements are also needed - taxes on the 'wrong' food or recruitment policies which penalise unhealthy lifestyles.
And given its relevance of the issue to it I think the NHS has a responsibility to lead by example.
Yes, staff obesity is an issue. Particularly noticeable with the nursing staff. Too many chocolates and biscuits as presents! A lot of Trusts, including my own have positive policies aimed at health staff. In the end, it is up to individuals though.
British cops tend to be lard-arses as well. Presumably it is the same kind of culture. Doughnuts at work, junk food at the end of the shift.
My work people bring in cake, I just don't eat it. It isn't that difficult or if you wish to join in cut a small slice rather than half the cake as some work colleagues seem to do usually the same ones that say "I don't know why I keep putting on weight I eat like a fly"
If you cannot resist the temptation of a workplace cake then you weren't going to maintain discipline anyway, same as being able to say no to a beer after work.
Saying no to a beer after work is dead easy, going for a drink with my colleagues would be as fun as going out with a posse of ed milibrands
Not much "Ally McBeal" going on in your world then.
But seriously, say No a few times and they should stop asking.
If they don't it's workplace bullying and should be reported.
But I could also probably report them for work place bullying if they invite the whole team but not me....
See thats HR bollocks right there at work. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is where your wokeism gets you eventually
As to Ally McBeal well anyone that tries for a date with anyone at work is in my mind absolutely mad....the possibilities for being reported to hr are endless there. I would be interested to see how the statistics on finding your spouse have work have changed since the 90's. Most guys I know would bite their hand off rather than make a comment to a female colleague that could be even vaguely thought of as flirtatious
Well I was seduced at work by my (now) 2nd wife. So I'm all in favour.
Yes, you were seduced, women are a lot less likely to have complaints against them sent to hr.
An analogy I grab a girls butt in the pub I don't know....probably at least 30% chance I get a sexual assault charge against me about 60% chance I get slapped. Both quite rightly I would add.
A girl grabs a guys butt in a pub which from experience is quite common on things like a hen night or general drunken girls night out at least when I used to frequent pubs. Chances of being hit with a sexual assault charge almost 0% chance of being slapped 0%. Even were you to report it I suspect the police wouldn't take it very seriously.
In short its easier for a woman at work to flirt than a guy
A big mystery is the fact that in the 60s and 70s people consumed more calories than they do today but were much thinner.
Not that much of a mystery if you think how many calories a coal miner would have consumed during a shift, for instance. Cars are the main reason are fat, alongside sugar in processed and fast food. People in London are much less fat than people in the rest of the country, because they drive less and walk/cycle more. It's also a crowd thing - if you are surrounded by overweight people, you are more likely to become overweight, because you feel under less pressure not to. Being overweight/obese has achieved critical mass (no pun intended) in the general population. It's not about body shaming people, but it is a public health disaster and I think it is quite sad in terms of the cost to people's general happiness and wellbeing.
Yes, that's very persuasive. Even IF fat people cost us less than slim people, in health care (I have my doubts) obesity is just a BAD thing, it is bad for self image, mental health, physical health, everything.
Go to Las Vegas and watch hideously obese Americans eating multiple burgers and foot long burritos. They do not look happy. They are not Falstaffian.
I agree. I am very doubtful about the cost argument - it is years of ill-health that costs the NHS, not people living a long (but healthy) life. I think a society full of unhealthy overweight people is a society that has something deeply wrong with it. Look at the States, there is something obviously messed up about the place. We are heading down the same path. Anglo Saxon capitalism makes people ill. Long hours, stress, convenience food, crappy public transport, bad urban planning, too much advertising, family unfriendly culture, hyper-individualism, it's all connected and is all contributing to a miserable and unhealthy, inactive population.
Given that the Soviet Union in its later years had falling life expectancy (one of the few countries in the world that did at that time) due to the shockingly unhealthy lifestyles of its inhabitants, you might want to blame ill health on something other than ‘Anglo Saxon capitalism.’
Not really. There are various idiotic and destructive economic and social models out there. Hyper capitalism is one of them, Soviet communism is another (and indeed worse) one. Others are available.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
A friend of mine who supplies medical equipment to hospitals and health centres in the West Midlands said this morning that things are still pretty bad in Walsall and Halesowen. The figures don’t appear to bear this out though.
Medical equipment would suggest people in hospital? As in numbers of long term cases with bad effects?
FWIW the latest stats would suggest that either there aren't that many of them in that area, or the remaining Covid patients in hospital are very unevenly distributed around the country.
Covid patients in hospital are now below 1500, and the ventilator occupancy total is only just into three figures.
in Leicester we have 26 inpatients now, with 5 on ICU at last count.
What action will they take against obese NHS workers ?
Over the years I've seen some grossly overweight people in NHS uniforms and thought it was a terrible example to set.
To be expected when people are working 12 hour shifts on poor wages. Why cook yourself a healthy meal when you get home from your shift when you can eat a kebab from the chippie?
Poor wages ? LOL
Not to mention that food is much cheaper to buy and cook yourself compared with grotty takeaways.
And what do they do on all their days off ?
Or that some of the fatties I've seen look like they're both cooking at home and going to the grotty takeaways.
Your lack of empathy is something else.
It doesn’t matter that food is cheaper to cook yourself. What matters is convenience. I find it difficult to be arsed to cook after coming home from a 9-5, never-mind a 8-8, or longer.
Its called taking some responsibility for yourself - most people do it, PB is full of anecdotes about diet and fitness regimes, so why not fat slobs as well.
If obesity is such a major health and social problem, and I agree that it is, then the NHS should be setting an example.
I'm not complaining about people who are overweight or drink too many units but those who are grossly obese.
Calling people “fat slobs” is not a way to motivate someone to be healthier.
There’s a culture in the NHS, and in many other jobs, of everyone bringing in cake, chocolate, sweets all the time to eat at lunch time etc. That’s on top of the difficulty of making healthy choices when you’re exhausted - something thats exacerbated by unhealthiness.
Just because you manage to make “health choices” doesn’t mean someone else is weak or lazy because they don’t.
A fat slob is still a fat slob whether they're called it or not.
People have the freedom to make their own choices but they have to take the responsibility for what the consequences are.
Excessive and inappropriate drinking and smoking are now not tolerated and have restrictions places upon them.
If obesity is now to be the focus of public health action then we need to consider what action is to be taken to reduce it.
And we need to accept that includes the stick as well as carrots.
Nobody is saying people have the freedom to make their own choices. Why are you trying to turn this into an argument that nobody is having?
Even if you recognise the need for people to take responsibility for themselves, we as a society can still make it easier for people to make the right choices.
My old employer completely refurbished the office and dining environment with a partial aim to help people eat healthier. They started providing free fruit, removed many unhealthy choices from vending machines, and gave employees much more fridge space and cooking facilities. People started eating more “proper meals” at lunch time rather than chocolate and snacks. It really worked.
Its called opening up a discussion on a current issue.
Now giving incentives, help and advice to adopt a more healthy lifestyle are good things.
But active discouragements are also needed - taxes on the 'wrong' food or recruitment policies which penalise unhealthy lifestyles.
And given its relevance of the issue to it I think the NHS has a responsibility to lead by example.
Yes, staff obesity is an issue. Particularly noticeable with the nursing staff. Too many chocolates and biscuits as presents! A lot of Trusts, including my own have positive policies aimed at health staff. In the end, it is up to individuals though.
British cops tend to be lard-arses as well. Presumably it is the same kind of culture. Doughnuts at work, junk food at the end of the shift.
My work people bring in cake, I just don't eat it. It isn't that difficult or if you wish to join in cut a small slice rather than half the cake as some work colleagues seem to do usually the same ones that say "I don't know why I keep putting on weight I eat like a fly"
If you cannot resist the temptation of a workplace cake then you weren't going to maintain discipline anyway, same as being able to say no to a beer after work.
Saying no to a beer after work is dead easy, going for a drink with my colleagues would be as fun as going out with a posse of ed milibrands
Not much "Ally McBeal" going on in your world then.
But seriously, say No a few times and they should stop asking.
If they don't it's workplace bullying and should be reported.
But I could also probably report them for work place bullying if they invite the whole team but not me....
See thats HR bollocks right there at work. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is where your wokeism gets you eventually
As to Ally McBeal well anyone that tries for a date with anyone at work is in my mind absolutely mad....the possibilities for being reported to hr are endless there. I would be interested to see how the statistics on finding your spouse have work have changed since the 90's. Most guys I know would bite their hand off rather than make a comment to a female colleague that could be even vaguely thought of as flirtatious
Well I was seduced at work by my (now) 2nd wife. So I'm all in favour.
Yes, you were seduced, women are a lot less likely to have complaints against them sent to hr.
An analogy I grab a girls butt in the pub I don't know....probably at least 30% chance I get a sexual assault charge against me about 60% chance I get slapped. Both quite rightly I would add.
A girl grabs a guys butt in a pub which from experience is quite common on things like a hen night or general drunken girls night out at least when I used to frequent pubs. Chances of being hit with a sexual assault charge almost 0% chance of being slapped 0%. Even were you to report it I suspect the police wouldn't take it very seriously.
In short its easier for a woman at work to flirt than a guy
A friend of mine witnessed a woman playfully "spanking" a male colleague in front of others.
He was not happy. He complained. She was disciplined, and it even went to court (she was acquitted of assault). It does happen
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
A big mystery is the fact that in the 60s and 70s people consumed more calories than they do today but were much thinner.
Not that much of a mystery if you think how many calories a coal miner would have consumed during a shift, for instance. Cars are the main reason are fat, alongside sugar in processed and fast food. People in London are much less fat than people in the rest of the country, because they drive less and walk/cycle more. It's also a crowd thing - if you are surrounded by overweight people, you are more likely to become overweight, because you feel under less pressure not to. Being overweight/obese has achieved critical mass (no pun intended) in the general population. It's not about body shaming people, but it is a public health disaster and I think it is quite sad in terms of the cost to people's general happiness and wellbeing.
Yes, that's very persuasive. Even IF fat people cost us less than slim people, in health care (I have my doubts) obesity is just a BAD thing, it is bad for self image, mental health, physical health, everything.
Go to Las Vegas and watch hideously obese Americans eating multiple burgers and foot long burritos. They do not look happy. They are not Falstaffian.
I agree. I am very doubtful about the cost argument - it is years of ill-health that costs the NHS, not people living a long (but healthy) life. I think a society full of unhealthy overweight people is a society that has something deeply wrong with it. Look at the States, there is something obviously messed up about the place. We are heading down the same path. Anglo Saxon capitalism makes people ill. Long hours, stress, convenience food, crappy public transport, bad urban planning, too much advertising, family unfriendly culture, hyper-individualism, it's all connected and is all contributing to a miserable and unhealthy, inactive population.
Given that the Soviet Union in its later years had falling life expectancy (one of the few countries in the world that did at that time) due to the shockingly unhealthy lifestyles of its inhabitants, you might want to blame ill health on something other than ‘Anglo Saxon capitalism.’
Not really. There are various idiotic and destructive economic and social models out there. Hyper capitalism is one of them, Soviet communism is another (and indeed worse) one. Others are available.
But the uk isnt hypercapitalist we live under social democracy, a hyper capitilist one would not have a minimum wage, a free at point of care health system, a welfare safety net for example.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
Spanish weather more than a touch different than ours of course.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
Churchill famously took a siesta each day, though he did not call it that. You'd know that if you'd read his biography by the Prime Minister.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
It's the entire culture over there though, isn't it? Long working days with a break in the middle, socialising late into the night, all arranged round mitigating the worst of the heat of the day.
From a purely personal point of view, I work factory hours Mon-Thurs, 7:30-4:15 with a half-hour lunch break. The notion of having two completely useless hours off in early afternoon and then being stuck there until nearly 6 in the evening fills me with horror.
Mr. Thompson, as a sentence "Black lives matter" is perfectly reasonable.
As a group "Black Lives Matter" is a collection of far left lunatics who have been complacently indulged by people who think a marketing slogan is some sort of gospel truth.
It is a slogan of gospel truth. Reclaim the phrase. Ignore the lunatics and say "of course black lives matter" and move on.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
It does seem to be spent eating rather than sleeping though
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
They only have siestas because it is unbearably hot in the afternoon, in the centre and south of the country. In Catalunya and Galicia it is less honoured.
What action will they take against obese NHS workers ?
Over the years I've seen some grossly overweight people in NHS uniforms and thought it was a terrible example to set.
To be expected when people are working 12 hour shifts on poor wages. Why cook yourself a healthy meal when you get home from your shift when you can eat a kebab from the chippie?
Poor wages ? LOL
Not to mention that food is much cheaper to buy and cook yourself compared with grotty takeaways.
And what do they do on all their days off ?
Or that some of the fatties I've seen look like they're both cooking at home and going to the grotty takeaways.
Your lack of empathy is something else.
It doesn’t matter that food is cheaper to cook yourself. What matters is convenience. I find it difficult to be arsed to cook after coming home from a 9-5, never-mind a 8-8, or longer.
Its called taking some responsibility for yourself - most people do it, PB is full of anecdotes about diet and fitness regimes, so why not fat slobs as well.
If obesity is such a major health and social problem, and I agree that it is, then the NHS should be setting an example.
I'm not complaining about people who are overweight or drink too many units but those who are grossly obese.
Calling people “fat slobs” is not a way to motivate someone to be healthier.
There’s a culture in the NHS, and in many other jobs, of everyone bringing in cake, chocolate, sweets all the time to eat at lunch time etc. That’s on top of the difficulty of making healthy choices when you’re exhausted - something thats exacerbated by unhealthiness.
Just because you manage to make “health choices” doesn’t mean someone else is weak or lazy because they don’t.
A fat slob is still a fat slob whether they're called it or not.
People have the freedom to make their own choices but they have to take the responsibility for what the consequences are.
Excessive and inappropriate drinking and smoking are now not tolerated and have restrictions places upon them.
If obesity is now to be the focus of public health action then we need to consider what action is to be taken to reduce it.
And we need to accept that includes the stick as well as carrots.
Nobody is saying people have the freedom to make their own choices. Why are you trying to turn this into an argument that nobody is having?
Even if you recognise the need for people to take responsibility for themselves, we as a society can still make it easier for people to make the right choices.
My old employer completely refurbished the office and dining environment with a partial aim to help people eat healthier. They started providing free fruit, removed many unhealthy choices from vending machines, and gave employees much more fridge space and cooking facilities. People started eating more “proper meals” at lunch time rather than chocolate and snacks. It really worked.
Its called opening up a discussion on a current issue.
Now giving incentives, help and advice to adopt a more healthy lifestyle are good things.
But active discouragements are also needed - taxes on the 'wrong' food or recruitment policies which penalise unhealthy lifestyles.
And given its relevance of the issue to it I think the NHS has a responsibility to lead by example.
Yes, staff obesity is an issue. Particularly noticeable with the nursing staff. Too many chocolates and biscuits as presents! A lot of Trusts, including my own have positive policies aimed at health staff. In the end, it is up to individuals though.
British cops tend to be lard-arses as well. Presumably it is the same kind of culture. Doughnuts at work, junk food at the end of the shift.
My work people bring in cake, I just don't eat it. It isn't that difficult or if you wish to join in cut a small slice rather than half the cake as some work colleagues seem to do usually the same ones that say "I don't know why I keep putting on weight I eat like a fly"
If you cannot resist the temptation of a workplace cake then you weren't going to maintain discipline anyway, same as being able to say no to a beer after work.
Saying no to a beer after work is dead easy, going for a drink with my colleagues would be as fun as going out with a posse of ed milibrands
Not much "Ally McBeal" going on in your world then.
But seriously, say No a few times and they should stop asking.
If they don't it's workplace bullying and should be reported.
But I could also probably report them for work place bullying if they invite the whole team but not me....
See thats HR bollocks right there at work. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is where your wokeism gets you eventually
As to Ally McBeal well anyone that tries for a date with anyone at work is in my mind absolutely mad....the possibilities for being reported to hr are endless there. I would be interested to see how the statistics on finding your spouse have work have changed since the 90's. Most guys I know would bite their hand off rather than make a comment to a female colleague that could be even vaguely thought of as flirtatious
Well I was seduced at work by my (now) 2nd wife. So I'm all in favour.
Yes, you were seduced, women are a lot less likely to have complaints against them sent to hr.
An analogy I grab a girls butt in the pub I don't know....probably at least 30% chance I get a sexual assault charge against me about 60% chance I get slapped. Both quite rightly I would add.
A girl grabs a guys butt in a pub which from experience is quite common on things like a hen night or general drunken girls night out at least when I used to frequent pubs. Chances of being hit with a sexual assault charge almost 0% chance of being slapped 0%. Even were you to report it I suspect the police wouldn't take it very seriously.
In short its easier for a woman at work to flirt than a guy
A friend of mine witnessed a woman playfully "spanking" a male colleague in front of others.
He was not happy. He complained. She was disciplined, and it even went to court (she was acquitted of assault). It does happen
I didn't say it never happened, just it is less likely to both be reported and if reported taken seriously than if a guy did it. Your example seems pretty strong in the first place and clear cut. Partly the lack of reporting is our own fault just like female on male domestic violence is under reported by significant amounts.
I know people who for example who have been complained about to HR for things like standing to0 close in a lift. Now I can see that being creepy and no problem but I suspect if you go to hr and say such and such woman was standing too close to me in the lift it wouldn't be taken as seriously. I have certainly seen women do things in offices that I would be expected to be up in front of HR for if I did them.
Are you talking about the one that was Umpire's Call on the review? Umpire's Call means it was very marginal so stick with the original Umpire's decision, only clearly missing or clearly hitting gets reversed.
Its what football should introduce for the offside decisions rather than saying something was a hairs width offside so we're going to spend 3 minutes lining it up then reverse the decision.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
Encouraging signs that it may be starting to calm down in Luton, Northampton and Peterborough. That just leaves parts of Lancs, S & W Yorks, W Mids and Leicester. Looking at the helpful table of rates per 100,000 that @Malmesbury has also provided is even more encouraging as the West Midlands fades right out as well.
It's not gone away but it is down to background noise in most of the country. The aim now, presumably, has to be to crush the disease in the remaining hotspots before the schools come back.
A medical friend relates an outbreak in Carlisle linked to 4 pubs. None of which made any effort to record customers. Don't see this in the figures.
Motogp riders haven't been doing anything BLM related, as far as I am aware.
Are there any black participants?
Don't think so. I suspect that were it not for Lewis Hamilton, F1 wouldn't have done anything either.
Motorsport is very white.
Arsene Wenger always used to say football is great because most kids have a go at it and so those who are talented tend to make it. Valentino Rossi called his autobiography "what if I had never tried it?" The reality is, for drivers/riders to make it requires their parents to have the desire and money to get their kid started.
The engineering and technical side should, in theory, be more accessible.
That's absolutely right. Football is the purest meritocracy there is. You know there is no greater footballing talent than Messi on this planet because if there was we would know about it. Motorsport - esp F1 - is towards the other end of the spectrum. At the extreme other end? Probably polo.
Although that assumes that if you are a great footballer you should be a footballer (as opposed to say a doctor or engineer) .Not sure football is that important
It more assumes that if you are a great footballer you WILL be a footballer.
But tbh the thought of (say) Lionel Messi being a doctor or an engineer - even a truly excellent one - is my idea of a criminal waste of talent.
In a way you almost hope such people are not great at other things once they retire for example. Say he turned out to be a fantastic novelist on top of being a great footballer, how unfair would that be? He'd be great at two things, and most people cannot even manage one.
lol - yes.
This is why I avoid trying new things now I'm ageing. Imagine if I took up the trumpet and it turned out I was genius standard. 20 odd years working in Financial Services when I could have been a white Miles, blowing up a storm and changing the musical landscape. The utter desolation of that feeling.
Are you talking about the one that was Umpire's Call on the review? Umpire's Call means it was very marginal so stick with the original Umpire's decision, only clearly missing or clearly hitting gets reversed.
Its what football should introduce for the offside decisions rather than saying something was a hairs width offside so we're going to spend 3 minutes lining it up then reverse the decision.
Yes, that one.
Thankyou! A genuinely helpful and illuminating PB exchange. I now understand
And yes, the cricket system of video review is exemplary: it adds to the interest and *tension* in a game, but it is all done quickly and the game resumes. Each team has three reviews. Football could learn a lot
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
I thought there was evidence it hurt black people disproportionately, as well?
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
They only have siestas because it is unbearably hot in the afternoon, in the centre and south of the country. In Catalunya and Galicia it is less honoured.
When I taught kindergarten in Taiwan we'd eat lunch, then get out tatami mats and all have an hour's kip on the floor. Very civilised after an evenings clubbing. At school they slept with their heads on the desks. PS, this was timetabled. And I was paid for the hour.
What action will they take against obese NHS workers ?
Over the years I've seen some grossly overweight people in NHS uniforms and thought it was a terrible example to set.
To be expected when people are working 12 hour shifts on poor wages. Why cook yourself a healthy meal when you get home from your shift when you can eat a kebab from the chippie?
Poor wages ? LOL
Not to mention that food is much cheaper to buy and cook yourself compared with grotty takeaways.
And what do they do on all their days off ?
Or that some of the fatties I've seen look like they're both cooking at home and going to the grotty takeaways.
Your lack of empathy is something else.
It doesn’t matter that food is cheaper to cook yourself. What matters is convenience. I find it difficult to be arsed to cook after coming home from a 9-5, never-mind a 8-8, or longer.
Its called taking some responsibility for yourself - most people do it, PB is full of anecdotes about diet and fitness regimes, so why not fat slobs as well.
If obesity is such a major health and social problem, and I agree that it is, then the NHS should be setting an example.
I'm not complaining about people who are overweight or drink too many units but those who are grossly obese.
Calling people “fat slobs” is not a way to motivate someone to be healthier.
There’s a culture in the NHS, and in many other jobs, of everyone bringing in cake, chocolate, sweets all the time to eat at lunch time etc. That’s on top of the difficulty of making healthy choices when you’re exhausted - something thats exacerbated by unhealthiness.
Just because you manage to make “health choices” doesn’t mean someone else is weak or lazy because they don’t.
A fat slob is still a fat slob whether they're called it or not.
People have the freedom to make their own choices but they have to take the responsibility for what the consequences are.
Excessive and inappropriate drinking and smoking are now not tolerated and have restrictions places upon them.
If obesity is now to be the focus of public health action then we need to consider what action is to be taken to reduce it.
And we need to accept that includes the stick as well as carrots.
Nobody is saying people have the freedom to make their own choices. Why are you trying to turn this into an argument that nobody is having?
Even if you recognise the need for people to take responsibility for themselves, we as a society can still make it easier for people to make the right choices.
My old employer completely refurbished the office and dining environment with a partial aim to help people eat healthier. They started providing free fruit, removed many unhealthy choices from vending machines, and gave employees much more fridge space and cooking facilities. People started eating more “proper meals” at lunch time rather than chocolate and snacks. It really worked.
Its called opening up a discussion on a current issue.
Now giving incentives, help and advice to adopt a more healthy lifestyle are good things.
But active discouragements are also needed - taxes on the 'wrong' food or recruitment policies which penalise unhealthy lifestyles.
And given its relevance of the issue to it I think the NHS has a responsibility to lead by example.
Yes, staff obesity is an issue. Particularly noticeable with the nursing staff. Too many chocolates and biscuits as presents! A lot of Trusts, including my own have positive policies aimed at health staff. In the end, it is up to individuals though.
British cops tend to be lard-arses as well. Presumably it is the same kind of culture. Doughnuts at work, junk food at the end of the shift.
My work people bring in cake, I just don't eat it. It isn't that difficult or if you wish to join in cut a small slice rather than half the cake as some work colleagues seem to do usually the same ones that say "I don't know why I keep putting on weight I eat like a fly"
If you cannot resist the temptation of a workplace cake then you weren't going to maintain discipline anyway, same as being able to say no to a beer after work.
Saying no to a beer after work is dead easy, going for a drink with my colleagues would be as fun as going out with a posse of ed milibrands
Not much "Ally McBeal" going on in your world then.
But seriously, say No a few times and they should stop asking.
If they don't it's workplace bullying and should be reported.
But I could also probably report them for work place bullying if they invite the whole team but not me....
See thats HR bollocks right there at work. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. This is where your wokeism gets you eventually
As to Ally McBeal well anyone that tries for a date with anyone at work is in my mind absolutely mad....the possibilities for being reported to hr are endless there. I would be interested to see how the statistics on finding your spouse have work have changed since the 90's. Most guys I know would bite their hand off rather than make a comment to a female colleague that could be even vaguely thought of as flirtatious
Well I was seduced at work by my (now) 2nd wife. So I'm all in favour.
Yes, you were seduced, women are a lot less likely to have complaints against them sent to hr.
An analogy I grab a girls butt in the pub I don't know....probably at least 30% chance I get a sexual assault charge against me about 60% chance I get slapped. Both quite rightly I would add.
A girl grabs a guys butt in a pub which from experience is quite common on things like a hen night or general drunken girls night out at least when I used to frequent pubs. Chances of being hit with a sexual assault charge almost 0% chance of being slapped 0%. Even were you to report it I suspect the police wouldn't take it very seriously.
In short its easier for a woman at work to flirt than a guy
Largely because that type of thing is less likely to be threatening and/or humiliating if it's F on M. But if it is, it should be treated just as seriously.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Correlation and causation match up in Leicester, however. There the outbreak is linked to low paid sweat shops within urban Muslim culture, known about yet overlooked, for decades, by authorities.
Definitely an uptick in cases. Hopefully related to more testing in areas with outbreaks rather than more community transmission.
That's been going on for a little while. There would only be cause for serious concern if the 111 and 999 call numbers were starting to spike, followed by an uptick in hospitalisations. We're not seeing those sorts of movements yet. Though, on the subject of outbreaks...
A medical friend relates an outbreak in Carlisle linked to 4 pubs. None of which made any effort to record customers. Don't see this in the figures.
Not yet. However, the most recent NHS call stats show North Cumbria near the top of the table, so perhaps if this is still very recent it might start to filter through into the testing numbers early next week?
And if that story is accurate then hopefully the City Council will force the pubs concerned to shut.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
I thought there was evidence it hurt black people disproportionately, as well?
That's correct, your likelihood to be infected is several multiples higher if you're black.
The problem is that it is difficult to know for sure why.
Is it geographic, because black people are more likely to live in dense urban areas. Or socioeconomic, because they are more likely to have jobs that cannot be done from home or are involve a lot of contact with members of the public (i.e. bus driver). Or to do with larger family sizes, or to do with the likelihood of someone they know going to an Evangelical church.
Or is it genetic? And when we say genetic, there are a whole different ways that could work too.
Was it supermarkets which killed the local butcher etc or modern work patterns ?
Supermarkets are open all hours while the local butcher etc are open 9-5 at most.
In my experience the areas which still have the local butcher etc are the more upmarket ones with affluent pensioners and non-working wives/mothers who have the time and money to do a traditional 'market street' style shop.
Supermarkets have only extended opening hours in the past 30 years Sunday trading was introduced by the Thatcher Government and whether you support it or not, it was understandably hard for a small business to have to trade seven days a week while the big boys could afford to with ease.
Perhaps the Homeworking Revolution will change the dynamic once again and re-vitalise local towns in the day and offer opportunities for more specialist food shops. I hope that happens.
I'd also add under "modern work patterns" people having to work longer hours either to make ends meet or as part of a cultural shift to longer hours?
Why don’t smaller shops open 12-8 instead of 9-5? Would make much more sense in my opinion.
The feminist revolution of everyone working has had a big effect.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Why on Earth would one want to have a useless two hour break in the early afternoon and then be made to continue to work into the evening?
The Spanish seem very happy with that arrangement. Not saying it would work for me, but it clearly works for some people.
They only have siestas because it is unbearably hot in the afternoon, in the centre and south of the country. In Catalunya and Galicia it is less honoured.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
Manchester City have scored I see meaning they haven't had a single game all season goalless. Sometimes things are 70/1 because that's genuinely what it should be . . . or more.
Got 90 in the end. But the strategy failed this time due to 1st goal too early. It works though, over time, for very high odds nil nilers. @Stocky will confirm. He does it too and me and him are such shrewdies. Least we think we are.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Correlation and causation match up in Leicester, however. There the outbreak is linked to low paid sweat shops within urban Muslim culture, known about yet overlooked, for decades, by authorities.
The Leicester garment industry is dominated by Hindu small businesses. The Belgrave and Rushey Mead areas are similarly mostly Hindu.
There is a problem with sweatshops in Leicester, but tracing has not identified any workplace as a nexus of transmission.
What is unusual in Leicester though is that the areas affected are nearly entirely terraced housing.
Manchester City have scored I see meaning they haven't had a single game all season goalless. Sometimes things are 70/1 because that's genuinely what it should be . . . or more.
Got 90 in the end. But the strategy failed this time due to 1st goal too early. It works though, over time, for very high odds nil nilers. @Stocky will confirm. He does it too and me and him are such shrewdies. Least we think we are.
I work with a load of pro gamblers and they all laid it
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
Imagine somebody who spends their life on this site (and has admitted that they can't stop responding) calling somebody else obsessed lol
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Bolton is the only one not on there! And I have just found out Darwen is more or less Bolton
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Can you name the similar sized high population density towns that aren't on the list?
Going by the Wikipedia list of the local authorities with the highest percentages of Muslim population they name 20 authorities - of which it seems that 7 are on your list and 13 are not. So 35% in that list and 65% are not.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Correlation and causation match up in Leicester, however. There the outbreak is linked to low paid sweat shops within urban Muslim culture, known about yet overlooked, for decades, by authorities.
The Leicester garment industry is dominated by Hindu small businesses. The Belgrave and Rushey Mead areas are similarly mostly Hindu.
There is a problem with sweatshops in Leicester, but tracing has not identified any workplace as a nexus of transmission.
What is unusual in Leicester though is that the areas affected are nearly entirely terraced housing.
And what are the odds that the same thing applies to the flare-up in Blackburn? Unfortunately we appear to lack a contributor from that locality with knowledge akin to yours.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Callaghan should have goe for a GE in Autumn 1978. A much better prospect of a win then.
Manchester City have scored I see meaning they haven't had a single game all season goalless. Sometimes things are 70/1 because that's genuinely what it should be . . . or more.
Got 90 in the end. But the strategy failed this time due to 1st goal too early. It works though, over time, for very high odds nil nilers. @Stocky will confirm. He does it too and me and him are such shrewdies. Least we think we are.
I work with a load of pro gamblers and they all laid it
Fair value was 110 apparently
I'm a pro too!
It's to do with how the price drops as time passes without a goal and how that plays against the "time of 1st goal" market.
But if you start miles out on "FV" it won't work over a season.
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Can you name the similar sized high population density towns that aren't on the list?
Going by the Wikipedia list of the local authorities with the highest percentages of Muslim population they name 20 authorities - of which it seems that 7 are on your list and 13 are not. So 35% in that list and 65% are not.
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Can you name the similar sized high population density towns that aren't on the list?
Going by the Wikipedia list of the local authorities with the highest percentages of Muslim population they name 20 authorities - of which it seems that 7 are on your list and 13 are not. So 35% in that list and 65% are not.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Can you name the similar sized high population density towns that aren't on the list?
Going by the Wikipedia list of the local authorities with the highest percentages of Muslim population they name 20 authorities - of which it seems that 7 are on your list and 13 are not. So 35% in that list and 65% are not.
Tyneside (i.e. Greater Newcastle)?
No
Leicester 4,436 people per square km Newcastle 596 people per square km
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Is there singing in Islamic religious services?
I don’t believe so. But anyway, even if there is I would have thought the sharing of washing facilities, the close packing of the rooms and the lack of ventilation would be more likely to be issues.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Is there singing in Islamic religious services?
Music of any form is not.
If there is any connection, then it is more likely to be unofficial gatherings at Eid. That was two months ago now though, so getting a bit tenuous.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
Although as a proportion of the population Bradford must be far higher.
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
Can you name the similar sized high population density towns that aren't on the list?
Going by the Wikipedia list of the local authorities with the highest percentages of Muslim population they name 20 authorities - of which it seems that 7 are on your list and 13 are not. So 35% in that list and 65% are not.
Tyneside (i.e. Greater Newcastle)?
No
Leicester 4,436 people per square km Newcastle 596 people per square km
Well you’re right that Leicester’s is higher, but Newcastle’s density is 2,646 per square km.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
Although as a proportion of the population Bradford must be far higher.
The Wikipedia list is very dated (2001 census) but puts Tower Hamlets much higher than Bradford.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
Although as a proportion of the population Bradford must be far higher.
The Wikipedia list is very dated (2001 census) but puts Tower Hamlets much higher than Bradford.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army. In Jan and Feb the Tories were seeing 20% leads - which were cut back to 7% at the beginning of May. I firmly believe that a few more weeks would have narrowed that gap further. An election held on 7th June - five weeks later - would have been interesting in that it coincided with the first direct elections to the European Parliament with Labour being the more Eurosceptical party at the time. The Common Market would likely have been a key campaign issue probably to Labour's advantage.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
I wouldn't say so
I would, the numbers for these ones from the list are negligible. London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army. In Jan and Feb the Tories were seeing 20% leads - which were cut back to 7% at the beginning of May. I firmly believe that a few more weeks would have narrowed that gap further. An election held on 7th June - five weeks later - would have been interesting in that it coincided with the first direct elections to the European Parliament with Labour being the more Eurosceptical party at the time. The Common Market would likely have been a key campaign issue probably to Labour's advantage.
Really enjoying these historical posts, well done all involved.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
Yup.
My guess is the issue is poverty* multiplied by community disengagement from wider social structures.
*Terraced houses aren't a problem, as such. Until they are in a bad state and over crowded**. **Scum bag landlords, I'm looking at you.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
I wouldn't say so
I would, the numbers for these ones from the list are negligible. London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
"Weeks of violent clashes between federal agents and protesters in Portland, Ore., galvanized thousands of people to march through the streets of American cities on Saturday, injecting new life into protests that had largely waned in recent weeks."
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
Although as a proportion of the population Bradford must be far higher.
The Wikipedia list is very dated (2001 census) but puts Tower Hamlets much higher than Bradford.
Point conceded, but you said ‘London.’
I said London after in the prior post before that I'd put this list: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
I didn't fancy writing Tower Hamlets, Newham etc and so summarised it down to London - which was also the #1 city by far on the chart I was replying to. Where are all the London local authorities at the top of the chart?
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
I wouldn't say so
I would, the numbers for these ones from the list are negligible. London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
Haha incredible
Well? I've demonstrated statistically that 2/3rds of the authorities with the highest proportion of Muslim population are not there and posited an alternative hypothesis that explains the difference . . . and all you are doing is doing is basically saying "look there be Muslims there". That isn't an answer.
"Weeks of violent clashes between federal agents and protesters in Portland, Ore., galvanized thousands of people to march through the streets of American cities on Saturday, injecting new life into protests that had largely waned in recent weeks."
NYTimes
Playing right into Trump's hands sadly.
Not sure it does. Unmarked Federal agents in military uniforms teargassing the Wall of Moms doesn't look good for Trump
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army. In Jan and Feb the Tories were seeing 20% leads - which were cut back to 7% at the beginning of May. I firmly believe that a few more weeks would have narrowed that gap further. An election held on 7th June - five weeks later - would have been interesting in that it coincided with the first direct elections to the European Parliament with Labour being the more Eurosceptical party at the time. The Common Market would likely have been a key campaign issue probably to Labour's advantage.
I stand corrected on the power strikes, thank you.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Callaghan should have goe for a GE in Autumn 1978. A much better prospect of a win then.
I totally agree. In my view he was a poor leader and got so many timing decisions disastrously wrong. First the failure to call an election for Autumn 78. Secondly it became clear almost a week ahead of the No Confidence Vote on 28th March 1979 that the Government was likely to lose it - most calculations had them losing by two votes. Faced with that, in my view he should have gone along to the Palace 48 hours before the Vote - 26th March - and asked the Queen to agree to an election being held on 7th June. Once the date had been announced it could not really have been changed and the Vote due on 28th March would have assumed less importance. The Tories would have been up in arms but powerless to change the timing. I suspect that Harold Wilson would have acted along these lines. Finally after losing the 1979 election, he hung on to the Leadership as LOTO for too long . By not stepping down until October 1980 he thwarted Denis Healey's hopes of being his successor.
Basically, Coronavirus in Britain has now been confined to a few northern towns with large BAME populations?
The B and ME's could justifiably raise an eyebrow at that, as could a lot of the As
They would? Why?
I'm just stating the case, not making an opinion. We know that Covid-19 hits BAME populations in particular - there is a striking discrepancy. It also hits poorer people and obese people. It is not, therefore, hugely surprising that the last clusters of the virus are in poorer cities with large BAME populations (and some poorer London boroughs)
Seems to me the places hit have large Muslim population, not Black, Chinese or any other kind of Asian demographic
You seem a touch obsessed over this if you don't mind me saying. Why?
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Obsessed!!! Why, because I have said it three times?!
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
It doesn't look like Muslim cities either. Most of the places with the highest Muslim population AFAIK are NOT on the list.
Not high COVID: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID: Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674 City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188 Luton 14.6% 26,963 Birmingham 14.3% 139,771 Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039 Leicester 11.0% 30,885 Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
This argument is so one sided it is absurd
Yes London destroys your argument. If Muslim population was the factor then where is London in the COVID chart? The highest proportion of Muslim population by far is in London yet London isn't in the COVID chart at all. Your theory doesn't stand by the statistics.
Although as a proportion of the population Bradford must be far higher.
The Wikipedia list is very dated (2001 census) but puts Tower Hamlets much higher than Bradford.
Point conceded, but you said ‘London.’
I said London after in the prior post before that I'd put this list: London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389 London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293 London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902 High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708 London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908 London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388 Pendle 13.4% 11,988 Slough 13.4% 15,897 London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290 London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487 City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346 London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906 London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371 London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
I didn't fancy writing Tower Hamlets, Newham etc and so summarised it down to London - which was also the #1 city by far on the chart I was replying to. Where are all the London local authorities at the top of the chart?
There's clearly something else going on.
Noted. I hadn’t followed your argument closely enough. Thank you for clarifying.
FPT Justin124 said: ' Had the SNP not supported the Tories in late March 1979 the Government would not have fallen at that point - and no GE would have taken place on 3rd May. The election would have then been in June or October that year.'
Carnyx said:
'Something inevitable came 3-4 months early, at best, in other words.
Jim Callaghan never blamed the SNP. '
The difference in timing of the GE could well have proved crucial. A few more weeks or months would have given Callaghan time to enable memories of the Winter of Discontent to fade a fair bit further than had occured by 3rd May. As a result the Tory lead in vote share might well have narrowed to circa 3% rather than the 7% margin Thatcher managed that May. That would likely have meant a Hung Parliament - probably a minority Tory Government supported by the Ulster Unionists. Probably far too weak to increase VAT from 8% to 15% a month later.
Hmm... [edit] a good counterfactual. But I can't see it. Vague memories, I was young, but my impression is relentless hatred of Labour being whiopped up by the Tory newspapers - no way would that W of D with all its power strikes, homework by candle, rat-infested rubbish heaps, corpses piling up in mortuaries, be allowed to be forgotten till after Mrs T had had her victory. And not even after that.
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
There were no power strikes during the Winter of Discontent - they belong to the Heath Government and the 3-Day Week of late 73/early 74. The turmoil of Jan/Feb 1979 began with a Lorry Drivers' strike followed by the unrelenting misery when public sector workers led by Alan Fisher's NUPE joined in. The miners and electricity workers were not involved - but the crisis went on for so long with the Government appearing helpless. I was a Labour PPC at the time and felt strongly that Callaghan should have deployed the Army. In Jan and Feb the Tories were seeing 20% leads - which were cut back to 7% at the beginning of May. I firmly believe that a few more weeks would have narrowed that gap further. An election held on 7th June - five weeks later - would have been interesting in that it coincided with the first direct elections to the European Parliament with Labour being the more Eurosceptical party at the time. The Common Market would likely have been a key campaign issue probably to Labour's advantage.
I think it is fair to say that while the Sun’s infamous headline was a deliberate misquote of what he said, Callaghan’s somewhat apathetic approach to handling the WoD did him no good whatsoever with the electorate.
He remained personally popular of course, but it made his government look weak and irresolute.
Comments
As a group "Black Lives Matter" is a collection of far left lunatics who have been complacently indulged by people who think a marketing slogan is some sort of gospel truth.
The topic was anti BLACK racism.
C'mon.
I rather think that a big afternoon break, Spanish style, would be good.
Now watch him find an ingenious way to throw away his wicket...
Life expectancy of women in Russia: 77
Life expectancy of men in Russia: 66
All that vodka....
Covid patients in hospital are now below 1500, and the ventilator occupancy total is only just into three figures.
Why was that not out?
BLM as a meme has however caught the zeitgeist. There is a widespread international recognition that systemic racism has not gone away, even though often it is more subtle than in the USA.
An analogy
I grab a girls butt in the pub I don't know....probably at least 30% chance I get a sexual assault charge against me about 60% chance I get slapped. Both quite rightly I would add.
A girl grabs a guys butt in a pub which from experience is quite common on things like a hen night or general drunken girls night out at least when I used to frequent pubs. Chances of being hit with a sexual assault charge almost 0% chance of being slapped 0%. Even were you to report it I suspect the police wouldn't take it very seriously.
In short its easier for a woman at work to flirt than a guy
So we should expect a fairly rapid 30 and then an inventive dismissal.
Except he’s not even been getting to 30 consistently this summer.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1287384879299166209?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1287406504165937154?s=20
He was not happy. He complained. She was disciplined, and it even went to court (she was acquitted of assault). It does happen
From a purely personal point of view, I work factory hours Mon-Thurs, 7:30-4:15 with a half-hour lunch break. The notion of having two completely useless hours off in early afternoon and then being stuck there until nearly 6 in the evening fills me with horror.
The siesta is also dying out
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/feb/09/why-spanish-sleeping-habits-under-strain
I know people who for example who have been complained about to HR for things like standing to0 close in a lift. Now I can see that being creepy and no problem but I suspect if you go to hr and say such and such woman was standing too close to me in the lift it wouldn't be taken as seriously. I have certainly seen women do things in offices that I would be expected to be up in front of HR for if I did them.
Its what football should introduce for the offside decisions rather than saying something was a hairs width offside so we're going to spend 3 minutes lining it up then reverse the decision.
Don't see this in the figures.
This is why I avoid trying new things now I'm ageing. Imagine if I took up the trumpet and it turned out I was genius standard. 20 odd years working in Financial Services when I could have been a white Miles, blowing up a storm and changing the musical landscape. The utter desolation of that feeling.
Thankyou! A genuinely helpful and illuminating PB exchange. I now understand
And yes, the cricket system of video review is exemplary: it adds to the interest and *tension* in a game, but it is all done quickly and the game resumes. Each team has three reviews. Football could learn a lot
Correlation does not equal causation either. The cities in the list to me seem to be small cities with high population densities. Large cities (like London which also has a high Muslim population) got hit earlier, while low population densities are easier to end the outbreak. So I think you're seeing something that isn't there.
Very civilised after an evenings clubbing.
At school they slept with their heads on the desks.
PS, this was timetabled.
And I was paid for the hour.
And if that story is accurate then hopefully the City Council will force the pubs concerned to shut.
The problem is that it is difficult to know for sure why.
Is it geographic, because black people are more likely to live in dense urban areas. Or socioeconomic, because they are more likely to have jobs that cannot be done from home or are involve a lot of contact with members of the public (i.e. bus driver). Or to do with larger family sizes, or to do with the likelihood of someone they know going to an Evangelical church.
Or is it genetic? And when we say genetic, there are a whole different ways that could work too.
That's quite hard to swallow haha but, looking at the places that are high on the list, I am comfortable that its not just random small cities
There is a problem with sweatshops in Leicester, but tracing has not identified any workplace as a nexus of transmission.
What is unusual in Leicester though is that the areas affected are nearly entirely terraced housing.
Fair value was 110 apparently
These places all seem to have high Islamic populations. There are probably hundreds of similar sized towns in England that aren't on this list. Maybe it's just because a lot of them are close to each other though
FFS, the Torties on PB andf elsewhere still go on about the WoD. And look at how they and the newspapers monstered Mr Corby for the occasional funeral or speech platform. It's not as if he had killed 120,000 people during his administration, is it?
And, again, Mr Callaghan's failure to adopt your thesis, even in hindsight, is very strong evidence.
Edit: just seen @sarissa 's point - good one there re the strength of the print media then.
Going by the Wikipedia list of the local authorities with the highest percentages of Muslim population they name 20 authorities - of which it seems that 7 are on your list and 13 are not. So 35% in that list and 65% are not.
It's to do with how the price drops as time passes without a goal and how that plays against the "time of 1st goal" market.
But if you start miles out on "FV" it won't work over a season.
Not high COVID:
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389
London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293
London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902
High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708
London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908
London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388
Pendle 13.4% 11,988
Slough 13.4% 15,897
London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290
London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487
City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346
London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906
London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371
London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
High COVID:
Blackburn with Darwen 19.4% 26,674
City of Bradford 16.1% 75,188
Luton 14.6% 26,963
Birmingham 14.3% 139,771
Metropolitan Borough of Oldham 11.1% 24,039
Leicester 11.0% 30,885
Kirklees 10.1% 39,312
Leicester 4,436 people per square km
Newcastle 596 people per square km
If there is any connection, then it is more likely to be unofficial gatherings at Eid. That was two months ago now though, so getting a bit tenuous.
Still a good season for them but perhaps a bit of the gloss has come off.
In Jan and Feb the Tories were seeing 20% leads - which were cut back to 7% at the beginning of May. I firmly believe that a few more weeks would have narrowed that gap further. An election held on 7th June - five weeks later - would have been interesting in that it coincided with the first direct elections to the European Parliament with Labour being the more Eurosceptical party at the time. The Common Market would likely have been a key campaign issue probably to Labour's advantage.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389
London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293
London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902
High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708
London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908
London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388
Pendle 13.4% 11,988
Slough 13.4% 15,897
London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290
London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487
City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346
London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906
London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371
London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
My guess is the issue is poverty* multiplied by community disengagement from wider social structures.
*Terraced houses aren't a problem, as such. Until they are in a bad state and over crowded**.
**Scum bag landlords, I'm looking at you.
Haha incredible
NYTimes
Playing right into Trump's hands sadly.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets 36.4% 71,389
London Borough of Newham 24.3% 59,293
London Borough of Waltham Forest 15.1% 32,902
High Wycombe 14.1%, 9,708
London Borough of Hackney 13.8% 27,908
London Borough of Enfield 13.5% 37,388
Pendle 13.4% 11,988
Slough 13.4% 15,897
London Borough of Brent 12.3% 32,290
London Borough of Redbridge 11.9% 28,487
City of Westminster 11.8% 21,346
London Borough of Camden 11.6% 22,906
London Borough of Haringey 11.3% 24,371
London Borough of Ealing 10.3% 31,033
I didn't fancy writing Tower Hamlets, Newham etc and so summarised it down to London - which was also the #1 city by far on the chart I was replying to. Where are all the London local authorities at the top of the chart?
There's clearly something else going on.
Mail debunked
Finally after losing the 1979 election, he hung on to the Leadership as LOTO for too long . By not stepping down until October 1980 he thwarted Denis Healey's hopes of being his successor.
He remained personally popular of course, but it made his government look weak and irresolute.
They should sue Hawkeye.