Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
No doubt to be reduced on appeal.
I seriously doubt it in this case - as it's worth pointing out this is one of those examples where our legal definition of murder doesn't quite tally with how the general public would see it.
I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.
Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?
Did I say that a Tory Story propaganda merchant will often find themselves wildly exaggerating the importance of a single year's 2.9% deficit and playing down the importance of the Global Financial Crisis?
I'm so astute sometimes.
It wasn't a single year's deficit, it was a structural deficit that was created from 2002 to 2007.
If the GFC hadn't happened and Any Other Crisis (AOC) had happened instead, the results would have been the same. Brown had trashed the books so we were not prepared for a crisis to hit.
This wasn't an accident. He had done it because he had "abolished busts".
Meanwhile back at the farm -
The year before Labour came to power in 1997, the deficit was 3% of GDP and the debt was 37% of GDP. Labour's first term saw both measures fall, while during Labour's second and third terms they returned to pretty much their state in 1996/97.
Then the onset of the financial crisis saw debt and deficit increase dramatically. The deficit increased from nearly 3% of GDP in 2007/08 to 10% in 2009/10 - a peacetime high. The debt increased from 34% of GDP to 63% of GDP.
They did not return to their state in 1996/97.
1996/97 the deficit was falling as the economy recovered after the last recession. Perfectly appropriate with cyclical economics. 2002-07 the deficit was increased and not falling.
Do you see the difference or do I need to resort to pictures instead of words?
Yes, get your crayons out. It would be a suitable way to express your understanding of this.
Lets try again then. I'll even colour code it for you.
1992-1997 under the Tories the deficit was going down 📉 2002-2007 under Labour the deficit went up 📈
Do you understand the difference between 📉 and 📈 ?
Being a bit silly now, Philip.
You're being very silly if you think 📉=📈
Do I need to explain the difference between 📉and 📈 or do you know what the difference is?
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
Just because a vaccine is announced - it doesn't actually change anything until people have actually been given it.
It does in the American mindset. It will be annouced as a big win for the US. American's will lap it up.
And if it's a UK vaccine?
What if it's Chinese? Or Cuban?
Well they certainly wouldn't be getting it if it were Cuban.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
Just because a vaccine is announced - it doesn't actually change anything until people have actually been given it.
My opinion is that President Trump's re-election hinges on two inter-related things:
(1) People not feeling frightened about CV19. This could happen because there's a vaccine, and people are getting it, and there is optimism that they will personally will get it soon. Or alternatively, it could happen because the virus's incidence starts to seriously wane, as it has done in Sweden.
(2) The economy needs to start re-opening. Right now, in California, Arizona, Texas and Florida, the economy is shutting down again. Unemployment is going to start rising again in these areas. This needs to start being reversed, and people need to feel optimistic.
It's possible both these things happen for him. But it's looking less and less likely that they will both be in place by the beginning of November.
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
3% springs to mind. The difference between catastrophe and blip? Hardly.
It's not clear to me why you seek to sustain this palpable nonsense. Is there a medical reason?
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
3% springs to mind. The difference between catastrophe and blip? Hardly.
It's not clear to me why you seek to sustain this palpable nonsense. Is there a medical reason?
It's not nonsense. It's a massive difference. I'm not sure why you're failing to see it I can only think you're blinkered.
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
There's no "will" in the world of forecasting, there is only "more likely" or "less likely".
Also, President Trump is likely to announce a vaccine, whether one exists or not.
The reason I say will is that Biden is such a poor candidate. He should be miles clear with the madness that Trump has been displaying but he is not.
Why does the PM need someone to communicate on his behalf? Is he too grand to do it himself or something? It’s the PM’s job to speak to the country he seeks to lead. If he can’t be bothered to do that he can resign and let someone else have a go.
That’s a silly comment
Agreed. Merits or not of this new approach not withstanding the idea that as its job to speak to the country means he shouldn't need someone to communicate for him is astoundingly lazy and silly. All press officers to be made redundant while we're at it? It's their job to run things too, all civil servants to go?
An extreme comparison rising to absurdity perhaps? Well it started out as absurdity.
I make no bones about disliking the man, but people need to rein it in so dislike does not mean critical of something like that for a reason as stupid as that at least.
Dont let Boris make us stupid by how we react to him.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
Just because a vaccine is announced - it doesn't actually change anything until people have actually been given it.
It does in the American mindset. It will be annouced as a big win for the US. American's will lap it up.
And if it's a UK vaccine?
The best US candidate, Noverna, is just entering Stage III trials which the researchers don't expect to conclude before November at the earliest. What's th estimate for the Oxford vaccine?
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
It also ignores that had RBS and other banks had the necessary 8% capital under Basel II regulations the bailouts would not have been necessary. It was because RBS had just 1.9% capital that they needed such a gigantic cash injection. Our banks went bankrupt because Gordon Brown designed a regulatory system that allowed them to go bankrupt.
In an alternate universe the FSA never existed and the Bank of England never lost control of financial stability oversight and RBS was prevented from emptying it's cash reserves to buy ABN from under the nose of Barclays and HBOS would have been forced to adhere to the minimum 8% Basel II capital requirements with actual quality assets and not just labelled a bunch of worthless rubbish as AAA rated. In that universe the UK banking sector didn't complete seize up for a year and we didn't have anywhere near as bad a recession.
As I've said many times the deficits from 2002-2007 were bad, but they are completely obliterated by just how awful the 2001 banking regulatory reforms were. Brown designed a system that was destined to fail in exactly the manner it failed. He put lesser people in charge of a sector and took away the tools the Bank of England had to keep banks in line with capital requirements and asset quality.
In the pantheon of terrible chancellors and PMs, Brown sits at the top looking down at the rest. He was completey awful.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
Just because a vaccine is announced - it doesn't actually change anything until people have actually been given it.
It does in the American mindset. It will be annouced as a big win for the US. American's will lap it up.
And if it's a UK vaccine?
The best US candidate, Noverna, is just entering Stage III trials which the researchers don't expect to conclude before November at the earliest. What's th estimate for the Oxford vaccine?
Conclude is not the same as get "good preliminary information".
I would hope we'll see early data out of the Oxford Vaccine by mid-September.
I don't think we would have been shielded from the impact of the GFC if we'd had the pre-97 financial regulation system. The collapse in the global economy caused by the American crash would have affected us whatever, as would the near-collapse of the Euro.
But it is at least possible, though ultimately unprovable, that our own financial system would not have contributed to the disaster.
At any rate, the Conservatives, had they been in power in 1997-2007, could hardly have done worse than Brown did in those years.
No problem with this as a view.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
It also ignores that had RBS and other banks had the necessary 8% capital under Basel II regulations the bailouts would not have been necessary. It was because RBS had just 1.9% capital that they needed such a gigantic cash injection. Our banks went bankrupt because Gordon Brown designed a regulatory system that allowed them to go bankrupt.
In an alternate universe the FSA never existed and the Bank of England never lost control of financial stability oversight and RBS was prevented from emptying it's cash reserves to buy ABN from under the nose of Barclays and HBOS would have been forced to adhere to the minimum 8% Basel II capital requirements with actual quality assets and not just labelled a bunch of worthless rubbish as AAA rated. In that universe the UK banking sector didn't complete seize up for a year and we didn't have anywhere near as bad a recession.
As I've said many times the deficits from 2002-2007 were bad, but they are completely obliterated by just how awful the 2001 banking regulatory reforms were. Brown designed a system that was destined to fail in exactly the manner it failed. He put lesser people in charge of a sector and took away the tools the Bank of England had to keep banks in line with capital requirements and asset quality.
In the pantheon of terrible chancellors and PMs, Brown sits at the top looking down at the rest. He was completey awful.
You're mixing up tier 1 capital (RBS 1.9%) and Basel 2 which required tier 1+2+3 to be 8%.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
I don't have this weeks issue yet but if that's the case I think it is, I'm not sure if it will make much difference to the case.
Seems reasonable. Huge sympathy but the legal tests to allow the action are struct for very good reasons and politicians cannot get involved in the way requested
I really, really, think we should wait for the sentence. Life, with a minimum of 25 years is, I understand, quite possible for manslaughter.
I don't think we would have been shielded from the impact of the GFC if we'd had the pre-97 financial regulation system. The collapse in the global economy caused by the American crash would have affected us whatever, as would the near-collapse of the Euro.
But it is at least possible, though ultimately unprovable, that our own financial system would not have contributed to the disaster.
At any rate, the Conservatives, had they been in power in 1997-2007, could hardly have done worse than Brown did in those years.
No problem with this as a view.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
There, see? Objective to a fault.
It wasn't "bonus culture" that was the problem it was lack of regulatory oversight that was the problem. HBOS turned their liquidity buffer into a profit centre by buying riskier assets and the FSA did nothing about it, before that the Bank of England had specific regulations in place to prevent such a thing from happening. The FSA was asleep at the wheel and we all paid the price. The FSA was a Brown creation, he destroyed the regulatory environment, he is responsible for the collapse of the sector.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
It also ignores that had RBS and other banks had the necessary 8% capital under Basel II regulations the bailouts would not have been necessary. It was because RBS had just 1.9% capital that they needed such a gigantic cash injection. Our banks went bankrupt because Gordon Brown designed a regulatory system that allowed them to go bankrupt.
In an alternate universe the FSA never existed and the Bank of England never lost control of financial stability oversight and RBS was prevented from emptying it's cash reserves to buy ABN from under the nose of Barclays and HBOS would have been forced to adhere to the minimum 8% Basel II capital requirements with actual quality assets and not just labelled a bunch of worthless rubbish as AAA rated. In that universe the UK banking sector didn't complete seize up for a year and we didn't have anywhere near as bad a recession.
As I've said many times the deficits from 2002-2007 were bad, but they are completely obliterated by just how awful the 2001 banking regulatory reforms were. Brown designed a system that was destined to fail in exactly the manner it failed. He put lesser people in charge of a sector and took away the tools the Bank of England had to keep banks in line with capital requirements and asset quality.
In the pantheon of terrible chancellors and PMs, Brown sits at the top looking down at the rest. He was completey awful.
You're mixing up tier 1 capital (RBS 1.9%) and Basel 2 which required tier 1+2+3 to be 8%.
I think it was 1.9% under Basel II once everything was recalculated for falling asset values. HBOS had a similar problem, they labelled a bunch of dogshit as prime assets, included it in their reserve capital for regulatory purposes and when the shit hit the fan the values crashed.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
I don't have this weeks issue yet but if that's the case I think it is, I'm not sure if it will make much difference to the case.
"The Tories have lost the plot Their unhealthy embrace of nanny-state gimmicks reveals an administration that has lost its way.
PADDY HANNAM"
Daniel Hannan should choose a less obvious pseudonym.
On domestic policy the article suggests Boris is governing like New Labour
So that's why he is ahead in the polls.
LOL.
Interesting to see that the proposal is for calorie information only to be required for chains with over 250 employees.
That's entirely logical to me. A chain restaurant following chain procedures and supplies should easily be able to get exact details and simply print them.
A small independent restaurant with a chef making fresh food using fresh produce shouldn't need to have the chef spend his time calculating the calorific data of what goes in to the food.
Reasonable compromise. McDonalds already have the data on their menus, other chains largely already have it on their websites too. Reasonable for chains to do this but exemption for the independents seems smart.
The chains which run franchises would probably find a loophole.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Doesn't sound as though it was decisive then. But the prosecutors and witnesses would have an awkward conversation about the theft of the Post Office funds if that trial was being heard now.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
I think that's probably nonsense. But perhaps it is best if any vaccine from the US comes after Nov 3rd. Just to be on the safe side.
Just as on here, David, Alistair, Cyclefree et al write the headers, but TSE chooses the pictures. (TSE hasn't of course ever made a mistake like this!)
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
Not really, he still had due cause for bludgeoning his wife to death, remove the theft side of things and you still have infidelity and fear of divorce as highly usable factors - and timings that don't make any sense at all.
Now I would say that that post office story is an absolute scandal but it really does shouldn't have an impact on this case.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
Not really, he still had due cause for bludgeoning his wife to death, remove the theft side of things and you still have infidelity and fear of divorce as highly usable factors - and timings that don't make any sense at all.
It might well be considered grounds for appeal though.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
Not really, he still had due cause for bludgeoning his wife to death, remove the theft side of things and you still have infidelity and fear of divorce as highly usable factors - and timings that don't make any sense at all.
It might well be considered grounds for appeal though.
We've got, of course, two probably incomplete stories. The jury would have heard all of it, but as Ydoethur posted upthread 'the prosecutors and witnesses would have an awkward conversation about the theft of the Post Office funds if that trial was being heard now.',
I don't think we would have been shielded from the impact of the GFC if we'd had the pre-97 financial regulation system. The collapse in the global economy caused by the American crash would have affected us whatever, as would the near-collapse of the Euro.
But it is at least possible, though ultimately unprovable, that our own financial system would not have contributed to the disaster.
At any rate, the Conservatives, had they been in power in 1997-2007, could hardly have done worse than Brown did in those years.
No problem with this as a view.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
There, see? Objective to a fault.
It wasn't "bonus culture" that was the problem it was lack of regulatory oversight that was the problem. HBOS turned their liquidity buffer into a profit centre by buying riskier assets and the FSA did nothing about it, before that the Bank of England had specific regulations in place to prevent such a thing from happening. The FSA was asleep at the wheel and we all paid the price. The FSA was a Brown creation, he destroyed the regulatory environment, he is responsible for the collapse of the sector.
Not an either/or. Lax regulation, yes, but the Bonus Culture was also a problem. A massive problem. The crisis was as much behavioural as structural and culture drives behaviour. In this case a corrupt culture driving corrupt behaviour.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
Not really, he still had due cause for bludgeoning his wife to death, remove the theft side of things and you still have infidelity and fear of divorce as highly usable factors - and timings that don't make any sense at all.
It might well be considered grounds for appeal though.
Just as on here, David, Alistair, Cyclefree et al write the headers, but TSE chooses the pictures. (TSE hasn't of course ever made a mistake like this!)
His picture today really captured the essence of data lounges. Some of his best work.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
Not really, he still had due cause for bludgeoning his wife to death, remove the theft side of things and you still have infidelity and fear of divorce as highly usable factors - and timings that don't make any sense at all.
It might well be considered grounds for appeal though.
I don't think we would have been shielded from the impact of the GFC if we'd had the pre-97 financial regulation system. The collapse in the global economy caused by the American crash would have affected us whatever, as would the near-collapse of the Euro.
But it is at least possible, though ultimately unprovable, that our own financial system would not have contributed to the disaster.
At any rate, the Conservatives, had they been in power in 1997-2007, could hardly have done worse than Brown did in those years.
No problem with this as a view.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
There, see? Objective to a fault.
It wasn't "bonus culture" that was the problem it was lack of regulatory oversight that was the problem. HBOS turned their liquidity buffer into a profit centre by buying riskier assets and the FSA did nothing about it, before that the Bank of England had specific regulations in place to prevent such a thing from happening. The FSA was asleep at the wheel and we all paid the price. The FSA was a Brown creation, he destroyed the regulatory environment, he is responsible for the collapse of the sector.
Not an either/or. Lax regulation, yes, but the Bonus Culture was also a problem. A massive problem. The crisis was as much behavioural as structural and culture drives behaviour. In this case a corrupt culture driving corrupt behaviour.
The lax regulation gave the bonus culture a place to exist. Do you think that HBOS would have dared to turn it's liquidity buffer into a profit centre if there was proper regulation? I'm sure someone got a gigantic bonus for it, but the idea would not even have come close to existing if the FSA wasn't so useless and didn't have a bunch of numpty box tickers working for them.
This is the conversation that happened at HBOS:
Analyst - I've got a great idea boss, we should buy riskier asset classes for our liquidity buffer and get a 5-6% annual return for it but class them as AAA rated. Boss - But the regulator won't allow it.
Everyone else in the room laughs at the joke by the boss.
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
3% springs to mind. The difference between catastrophe and blip? Hardly.
It's not clear to me why you seek to sustain this palpable nonsense. Is there a medical reason?
It's not nonsense. It's a massive difference. I'm not sure why you're failing to see it I can only think you're blinkered.
If it's a massive difference, what term do you tend to use for what most people would refer to as a massive difference?
Northern Rock's business model - of originating mortgages, packaging them up and then selling them - was not original, even in the UK. The Mortgage Company did it in the 1980s, it was just the Northern Rock perfected it.
And because house prices kept rising, the model looked brilliant. They originated loans, and sold them on at a profit, basically booking years of mortgage profits early and enabling then to outgrow their competition.
There were three problems with this plan:
1. If the market stopped going up, they needed to stop issuing mortgages immediately, as their model was based on them just owning (most of) loans for a short period of time.
2. People bought mortgages from Northern Rock, because Northern Rock's own traders provided a market for them. Buy a set of mortgages from Northern Rock. If you need to sell them later, Northern Rock will buy them back. The problem here was that because Northern Rock had a whole bunch of mortgages it needed to sell, that it needed to pretend that there was an orderly market for its mortgages. So, when the market was turning down it was actually buying its own mortgages back from investors.
3. Finally, when Northern Rock sold mortgages, it did so by breaking them down into tranches. To goose earnings, it kept the riskiest tranches. (Hey, house prices are always going up, so you never lose money even on the riskiest bit of a pool of mortgages!) Basel-II was predicated on all mortgages being the same, when the breaking of pools down into tranches, and having one tranche (so called "equity") seeing all the defaults broke that.
The point is that a sensible financial supervision system (not to be confused with financial regulation) would have had a good chance of spotting that NR was over-trading, and told them to cool it. OK, no guarantees of that - NR was, after all, a minor player, and might still have gone bust like banks have for generations - but a good chance. If it had just been NR, that wouldn't have been so bad.
More importantly, though, a sensible supervisory regime would have been looking at the systemic risks from multiple banks taking on highly-correlated risks. There was, literally, no-one tasked with doing that under Brown's tripartite mash-up. If there had been - if the BoE had been left in charge as it had been for 150 years - then it is very highly likely that the over-exposure would have been spotted and reined in. It still beggars belief that no-one in all the massive regulatory apparatus bothered to ask whether RBS was maybe over-doing things a tad with its takeover of ABN-Amro. IIRC the FSA board spent just a few minutes rubber-stamping the takeover. Of course they did - it was their job to check that all the boxes had been ticked, that all the bank employees had passed the utterly stupid FSA exams, that all the paperwork was properly filed, etc. It wasn't their job to check that the takeover wasn't going to crash the economy.
Thousands of compliance officers and regulators checking the minor details, no-one looking at the stability of the overall banking system. Thanks a bunch, Gordon.
It was worse than that over the RBS/ABN Amro takeover because the FCA was specifically warned about some serious irregularities - possibly amounting to criminality - in relation to that, which they proceeded not to pay any serious attention to.
Had they done and taken some action, the financial crisis here would not have been quite so disastrous.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
There's no "will" in the world of forecasting, there is only "more likely" or "less likely".
Also, President Trump is likely to announce a vaccine, whether one exists or not.
The reason I say will is that Biden is such a poor candidate. He should be miles clear with the madness that Trump has been displaying but he is not.
He has a good solid lead. A big chunk of the American public still love Trump remember. He's got a high floor. Thankfully he has a low ceiling as well. An image I like. High floor, low ceiling - floor inching up, ceiling inching down - crushed!
I don't think we would have been shielded from the impact of the GFC if we'd had the pre-97 financial regulation system. The collapse in the global economy caused by the American crash would have affected us whatever, as would the near-collapse of the Euro.
But it is at least possible, though ultimately unprovable, that our own financial system would not have contributed to the disaster.
At any rate, the Conservatives, had they been in power in 1997-2007, could hardly have done worse than Brown did in those years.
No problem with this as a view.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
There, see? Objective to a fault.
It wasn't "bonus culture" that was the problem it was lack of regulatory oversight that was the problem. HBOS turned their liquidity buffer into a profit centre by buying riskier assets and the FSA did nothing about it, before that the Bank of England had specific regulations in place to prevent such a thing from happening. The FSA was asleep at the wheel and we all paid the price. The FSA was a Brown creation, he destroyed the regulatory environment, he is responsible for the collapse of the sector.
Not an either/or. Lax regulation, yes, but the Bonus Culture was also a problem. A massive problem. The crisis was as much behavioural as structural and culture drives behaviour. In this case a corrupt culture driving corrupt behaviour.
The lax regulation gave the bonus culture a place to exist. Do you think that HBOS would have dared to turn it's liquidity buffer into a profit centre if there was proper regulation? I'm sure someone got a gigantic bonus for it, but the idea would not even have come close to existing if the FSA wasn't so useless and didn't have a bunch of numpty box tickers working for them.
This is the conversation that happened at HBOS:
Analyst - I've got a great idea boss, we should buy riskier asset classes for our liquidity buffer and get a 5-6% annual return for it but class them as AAA rated. Boss - But the regulator won't allow it.
Everyone else in the room laughs at the joke by the boss.
History seems to show us though, that crashes happen whatever the regulatory regime.
Highly regulated markets can give investors a false sense of security. A sense that the regulator has this 'covered'. Bet big, because we are watching.
I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.
Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?
Did I say that a Tory Story propaganda merchant will often find themselves wildly exaggerating the importance of a single year's 2.9% deficit and playing down the importance of the Global Financial Crisis?
I'm so astute sometimes.
It wasn't a single year's deficit, it was a structural deficit that was created from 2002 to 2007.
If the GFC hadn't happened and Any Other Crisis (AOC) had happened instead, the results would have been the same. Brown had trashed the books so we were not prepared for a crisis to hit.
This wasn't an accident. He had done it because he had "abolished busts".
Meanwhile back at the farm -
The year before Labour came to power in 1997, the deficit was 3% of GDP and the debt was 37% of GDP. Labour's first term saw both measures fall, while during Labour's second and third terms they returned to pretty much their state in 1996/97.
Then the onset of the financial crisis saw debt and deficit increase dramatically. The deficit increased from nearly 3% of GDP in 2007/08 to 10% in 2009/10 - a peacetime high. The debt increased from 34% of GDP to 63% of GDP.
They did not return to their state in 1996/97.
1996/97 the deficit was falling as the economy recovered after the last recession. Perfectly appropriate with cyclical economics. 2002-07 the deficit was increased and not falling.
Do you see the difference or do I need to resort to pictures instead of words?
Yes, get your crayons out. It would be a suitable way to express your understanding of this.
Lets try again then. I'll even colour code it for you.
1992-1997 under the Tories the deficit was going down 📉 2002-2007 under Labour the deficit went up 📈
Do you understand the difference between 📉 and 📈 ?
Being a bit silly now, Philip.
You're being very silly if you think 📉=📈
Do I need to explain the difference between 📉and 📈 or do you know what the difference is?
Look, I've been patient and tolerant but this is so puerile.
Desist forthwith or I will (with a heavy heart) have to cancel you.
SARS-CoV-2 viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding and infectiousness: a living systematic review and meta-analysis https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.25.20162107v1 ...Background Viral load kinetics and the duration of viral shedding are important determinants for disease transmission. We aim i) to characterise viral load dynamics, duration of viral RNA, and viable virus shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in various body fluids and ii) to compare SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics with SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Europe PMC, preprint servers and grey literature were searched to retrieve all articles reporting viral dynamics and duration of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV shedding. We excluded case reports and case series with < 5 patients, or studies that did not report shedding duration from symptom onset. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020181914. Findings: Seventy-nine studies on SARS-CoV-2, 8 on SARS-CoV-1, and 11 on MERS-CoV were included. Mean SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding duration in upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, stool and serum were 17.0, 14.6, 17.2 and 16.6 days, respectively. Maximum duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding reported in URT, LRT, stool and serum was 83, 59, 35 and 60 days, respectively. Pooled mean duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was positively associated with age (p=0.002), but not gender (p = 0.277). No study to date has detected live virus beyond day nine of illness despite persistently high viral loads. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appears to peak in the first week of illness, while SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV peak later. Conclusion: Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. Thus, detection of viral RNA cannot be used to infer infectiousness. High SARS-CoV-2 titres are detectable in the first week of illness with an early peak observed at symptom onset to day 5 of illness. This review underscores the importance of early case finding and isolation, as well as public education on the spectrum of illness. However, given potential delays in the isolation of patients, effective containment of SARS-CoV-2 may be challenging even with an early detection and isolation strategy....
I think @kinabalu lives in some bizarre parallel universe where crashes are for some reason never to be expected or prepared for so if a crash happens then its entirely reasonable to be fully exposed to it with no precautions.
Its like someone going hiking for a month in January, completely naked, with no backback, no tent, no supplies, they're just going to forage off the land. Then a storm comes in and they get hypothermia. Yes the storm may be what caused the hypothermia, but was it reasonable to be completely naked and exposed to the storm?
Did I say that a Tory Story propaganda merchant will often find themselves wildly exaggerating the importance of a single year's 2.9% deficit and playing down the importance of the Global Financial Crisis?
I'm so astute sometimes.
It wasn't a single year's deficit, it was a structural deficit that was created from 2002 to 2007.
If the GFC hadn't happened and Any Other Crisis (AOC) had happened instead, the results would have been the same. Brown had trashed the books so we were not prepared for a crisis to hit.
This wasn't an accident. He had done it because he had "abolished busts".
Meanwhile back at the farm -
The year before Labour came to power in 1997, the deficit was 3% of GDP and the debt was 37% of GDP. Labour's first term saw both measures fall, while during Labour's second and third terms they returned to pretty much their state in 1996/97.
Then the onset of the financial crisis saw debt and deficit increase dramatically. The deficit increased from nearly 3% of GDP in 2007/08 to 10% in 2009/10 - a peacetime high. The debt increased from 34% of GDP to 63% of GDP.
They did not return to their state in 1996/97.
1996/97 the deficit was falling as the economy recovered after the last recession. Perfectly appropriate with cyclical economics. 2002-07 the deficit was increased and not falling.
Do you see the difference or do I need to resort to pictures instead of words?
Yes, get your crayons out. It would be a suitable way to express your understanding of this.
Lets try again then. I'll even colour code it for you.
1992-1997 under the Tories the deficit was going down 📉 2002-2007 under Labour the deficit went up 📈
Do you understand the difference between 📉 and 📈 ?
Being a bit silly now, Philip.
You're being very silly if you think 📉=📈
Do I need to explain the difference between 📉and 📈 or do you know what the difference is?
Look, I've been patient and tolerant but this is so puerile.
Desist forthwith or I will (with a heavy heart) have to cancel you.
You're the one being puerile claiming in that quote you used that sparked this discussion, and I quote:
The year before Labour came to power in 1997, the deficit was 3% of GDP and the debt was 37% of GDP. Labour's first term saw both measures fall, while during Labour's second and third terms they returned to pretty much their state in 1996/97.
My point which you refused to accept is that the state of the deficit in 1996/97 was that it was being reduced. It's state was 📉. From 2002-07 despite the lack of a cyclical crash the state of the deficit was that it was increased. It's state was 📈.
Now do you accept that 📉 is not the same as 📈 or not? Do you still claim they are the same state?
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
3% springs to mind. The difference between catastrophe and blip? Hardly.
It's not clear to me why you seek to sustain this palpable nonsense. Is there a medical reason?
It's not nonsense. It's a massive difference. I'm not sure why you're failing to see it I can only think you're blinkered.
If it's a massive difference, what term do you tend to use for what most people would refer to as a massive difference?
A massive difference. Only an insane fool would consider the difference between a 7% deficit and 10% one to be minimal. Please can you explain under what possible logic you don't recognise it as being massive?
Haha, he's trying to claim all he did was just 'generalising'. That's ok then.
I wonder if he genuinely believes that nonsense explanation. Based on what he said, repeatedly and over a period of time, he is a racist. But he obviously knows being racist is bad, so either he's pulled a bullcrap explanation out in desperation, or he's thinking 'Racism is bad, I am not bad, therefore I cannot be racist'. And yet in his own words he definitely was talking about an entire race: My comments should not have been directed to all Jews or Jewish people
Meaning that they were so directed.
And yet by still seeking to deflect from what he said, it is hard to believe he actually accepts he was wrong and will change his ways.
It's not. But I'm also super sceptical of the high numbers for both the Greens and the Libertarians. This is such a polarising election: you are either voting for Trump to continue in office, or for him to leave office.
Actually it's not a bad poll for Biden. The last Zogby analytics poll was from 1-2 June and had Biden 46 Trump 46.
I'm more worried about the Change Research polls today showing Biden's lead dropping in Pa from +8 to +2, and in Fla from +7 to +3, compared to 2 weeks ago.
If the US annouces a vaccine before the election, which is highly likely, then Trump will win.
SARS-CoV-2 viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding and infectiousness: a living systematic review and meta-analysis https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.25.20162107v1 ...Background Viral load kinetics and the duration of viral shedding are important determinants for disease transmission. We aim i) to characterise viral load dynamics, duration of viral RNA, and viable virus shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in various body fluids and ii) to compare SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics with SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Europe PMC, preprint servers and grey literature were searched to retrieve all articles reporting viral dynamics and duration of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV shedding. We excluded case reports and case series with < 5 patients, or studies that did not report shedding duration from symptom onset. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020181914. Findings: Seventy-nine studies on SARS-CoV-2, 8 on SARS-CoV-1, and 11 on MERS-CoV were included. Mean SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding duration in upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, stool and serum were 17.0, 14.6, 17.2 and 16.6 days, respectively. Maximum duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding reported in URT, LRT, stool and serum was 83, 59, 35 and 60 days, respectively. Pooled mean duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was positively associated with age (p=0.002), but not gender (p = 0.277). No study to date has detected live virus beyond day nine of illness despite persistently high viral loads. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appears to peak in the first week of illness, while SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV peak later. Conclusion: Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. Thus, detection of viral RNA cannot be used to infer infectiousness. High SARS-CoV-2 titres are detectable in the first week of illness with an early peak observed at symptom onset to day 5 of illness. This review underscores the importance of early case finding and isolation, as well as public education on the spectrum of illness. However, given potential delays in the isolation of patients, effective containment of SARS-CoV-2 may be challenging even with an early detection and isolation strategy....
Was NOT aware that such cutting-edge research was happening at a golf course.
Lewis Goodall on R4 - the timing of lockdown was delayed because of SAGE belief in "lockdown fatigue" you couldn't lockdown too early or it would breakdown as infection peaked - but there wasn't much, if any scientific evidence that "lockdown fatigue" existed - as indeed it turned out....
I don't think we would have been shielded from the impact of the GFC if we'd had the pre-97 financial regulation system. The collapse in the global economy caused by the American crash would have affected us whatever, as would the near-collapse of the Euro.
But it is at least possible, though ultimately unprovable, that our own financial system would not have contributed to the disaster.
At any rate, the Conservatives, had they been in power in 1997-2007, could hardly have done worse than Brown did in those years.
No problem with this as a view.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
There, see? Objective to a fault.
It wasn't "bonus culture" that was the problem it was lack of regulatory oversight that was the problem. HBOS turned their liquidity buffer into a profit centre by buying riskier assets and the FSA did nothing about it, before that the Bank of England had specific regulations in place to prevent such a thing from happening. The FSA was asleep at the wheel and we all paid the price. The FSA was a Brown creation, he destroyed the regulatory environment, he is responsible for the collapse of the sector.
Not an either/or. Lax regulation, yes, but the Bonus Culture was also a problem. A massive problem. The crisis was as much behavioural as structural and culture drives behaviour. In this case a corrupt culture driving corrupt behaviour.
The lax regulation gave the bonus culture a place to exist. Do you think that HBOS would have dared to turn it's liquidity buffer into a profit centre if there was proper regulation? I'm sure someone got a gigantic bonus for it, but the idea would not even have come close to existing if the FSA wasn't so useless and didn't have a bunch of numpty box tickers working for them.
This is the conversation that happened at HBOS:
Analyst - I've got a great idea boss, we should buy riskier asset classes for our liquidity buffer and get a 5-6% annual return for it but class them as AAA rated. Boss - But the regulator won't allow it.
Everyone else in the room laughs at the joke by the boss.
Of course better and smarter gamekeeping would have discouraged poaching. That cannot seriously be disputed. But only in an idealized world - given the prevailing culture in the sector - could it have done so to the extent necessary to prevent the Global Financial Crisis or to shield us to any great degree from its fallout.
A few weeks ago we became quite exercised on here by the plight of the postmasters apparently wrongly convicted of fraud because their 'emp[oyers' effectively lied in Court. Now Private Eye has, in issue 1527, drawn attention to someone whose conviction for the murder of his wife depended at least in part on the evidence of Post Office Ltd fraud investigators who asserted, apparently on the evidence of the accounting system that the accused had been 'stealing from the Post Office'.
Ouch.
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
Apparently the prosecution said that the motive for the murder was to fake a robbery and conceal the fact that the chap had for years been stealing Post Office funds. The PO investigator said that there was a pattern which he'd seen many times before. The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
Granted, but if he wasn't stealing from the Post Office the case is that much weaker. He wouldn't have been the first to use his own funds to 'repay' the errors in the system.And, according to Private Eye, it was a majority verdict.
Not really, he still had due cause for bludgeoning his wife to death, remove the theft side of things and you still have infidelity and fear of divorce as highly usable factors - and timings that don't make any sense at all.
It might well be considered grounds for appeal though.
And a (very) tenable additional assertion is as follows - it is unlikely on the face of it that if his policies were retrospectively replaced by those being propounded at the time by the Conservative opposition it would have made much of a difference in the positive direction.
I'm guessing you edited this in, so didn't reply to it last time.
It depends, they say that hindsight is 20/20 but there were two things being warned about that were not hindsight.
1: The Tories warned about Brown's removal of Bank of England oversight of the banks which directly played a part of what made the GFC awful here. 2: The Tories warned about Brown's deficit before the recession and said that the deficit was dangerous, which directly led to the awful 10% deficit after the crash.
What are the things Brown is criticised for afterwards? His role he played in messing around financial stability in this country (1) and the role he played in the deficit (2) - both of which the Tories warned about before the recession. Funny that!
No, not edited in. It was my post to Topping.
But, ok, so we got stuck with a 10% deficit post crash rather than - I suppose we're saying - a 7 to 8% deficit if we'd had little or no deficit going into it.
Well done. That is a good hyperbole buster. Trouble is, it's your own on the receiving end.
There is a world of difference between a 10% deficit and a 7% deficit.
3% springs to mind. The difference between catastrophe and blip? Hardly.
It's not clear to me why you seek to sustain this palpable nonsense. Is there a medical reason?
It's not nonsense. It's a massive difference. I'm not sure why you're failing to see it I can only think you're blinkered.
If it's a massive difference, what term do you tend to use for what most people would refer to as a massive difference?
A massive difference. Only an insane fool would consider the difference between a 7% deficit and 10% one to be minimal. Please can you explain under what possible logic you don't recognise it as being massive?
If you call both a significant difference and a massive difference the same thing - a massive difference - you are restricting your range of expression unduly and needlessly. Worse, you make effective 2 way communication very difficult.
Really interesting piece on PM about "lockdown fatigue" and the total lack of any scientific evidence for it. Even when it was being widely used to justify not locking down in early March. Part of a Newsnight report tonight.
Lewis Goodall on R4 - the timing of lockdown was delayed because of SAGE belief in "lockdown fatigue" you couldn't lockdown too early or it would breakdown as infection peaked - but there wasn't much, if any scientific evidence that "lockdown fatigue" existed - as indeed it turned out....
I think SAGE was right. I've heard plenty of anecdotal stories of people really suffering in those 12 weeks. There are a lot of single people who live alone who have had a really, really hard time. Never mind those with existing mental health conditions.
And not easy to justify UK universities with generally top reputations (like Nottingham) having large campus presence in China. Very hard to believe they can maintain genuine academic freedom, free speech and democratic principle in such situations, and this must affect the reputation of the whole enterprise. They are riding a tiger that is getting hungry.
Lewis Goodall on R4 - the timing of lockdown was delayed because of SAGE belief in "lockdown fatigue" you couldn't lockdown too early or it would breakdown as infection peaked - but there wasn't much, if any scientific evidence that "lockdown fatigue" existed - as indeed it turned out....
Phew! Government off the hook then.
Was this when Cummings was an "observer" during the SAGE meetings?
Lewis Goodall on R4 - the timing of lockdown was delayed because of SAGE belief in "lockdown fatigue" you couldn't lockdown too early or it would breakdown as infection peaked - but there wasn't much, if any scientific evidence that "lockdown fatigue" existed - as indeed it turned out....
I think SAGE was right. I've heard plenty of anecdotal stories of people really suffering in those 12 weeks. There are a lot of single people who live alone who have had a really, really hard time. Never mind those with existing mental health conditions.
With respect, "lockdown fatigue" wasn't about people having a difficult time. It was about society as a whole being unwilling or unable to follow the guidelines after a certain time. All the evidence is that this never occurred and compliance remained very high.
Just as on here, David, Alistair, Cyclefree et al write the headers, but TSE chooses the pictures. (TSE hasn't of course ever made a mistake like this!)
Yes, OJ isn't really to blame, but we have all read the left wing "guilt by tenuous association" enough times to know full well that had Farage, Boris, Hitchens, Toby Young or someone similar made such a mistake, the likes of Jones would be completely unforgiving - we know this as The Guardian called doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING "insiduous" when an Irish Paper did so
What I love is that lefties took two days off from virtue signalling on twitter, in order to signal some virtue, and the minute they decided to return, their hero was apologising for their trade rag mixing up two black blokes!!!
There is no such thing as "law" in communist countries. It is all about power and communists will not tolerate any power independent of the Party.
In this you are mistaken.
There is indeed the concept of Law in dictatorial countries.
It is subordinated to the Good Of The People. Which is in turn defined by the Rulers.
So in China, the Law is defined as whatever the Party deems to protect The People.
The Soviet Union, under the 1936 Constitution, was the freest and most democratic country in the world. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, secret ballots, free elections and the right to fair trials and habeus corpus.
The only small problem was that all those rights were subordinated to the 'good of the workers,' which in practice meant the Communist Party could do whatever the hell it liked.
Lewis Goodall on R4 - the timing of lockdown was delayed because of SAGE belief in "lockdown fatigue" you couldn't lockdown too early or it would breakdown as infection peaked - but there wasn't much, if any scientific evidence that "lockdown fatigue" existed - as indeed it turned out....
I think these attempts to rewrite history are really futile.
Jenny Harries said publicly in March that they didn't want to apply the restrictions too soon because they thought it would lead to a second wave later. Quite clearly there was a herd immunity strategy.
There is no such thing as "law" in communist countries. It is all about power and communists will not tolerate any power independent of the Party.
In this you are mistaken.
There is indeed the concept of Law in dictatorial countries.
It is subordinated to the Good Of The People. Which is in turn defined by the Rulers.
So in China, the Law is defined as whatever the Party deems to protect The People.
The Soviet Union, under the 1936 Constitution, was the freest and most democratic country in the world. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, secret ballots, free elections and the right to fair trials and habeus corpus.
The only small problem was that all those rights were subordinated to the 'good of the workers,' which in practice meant the Communist Party could do whatever the hell it liked.
More to the point, you were required to do whatever the communist party liked.
There is no such thing as "law" in communist countries. It is all about power and communists will not tolerate any power independent of the Party.
In this you are mistaken.
There is indeed the concept of Law in dictatorial countries.
It is subordinated to the Good Of The People. Which is in turn defined by the Rulers.
So in China, the Law is defined as whatever the Party deems to protect The People.
The Soviet Union, under the 1936 Constitution, was the freest and most democratic country in the world. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, secret ballots, free elections and the right to fair trials and habeus corpus.
The only small problem was that all those rights were subordinated to the 'good of the workers,' which in practice meant the Communist Party could do whatever the hell it liked.
Yup - and many other dictatorships have followed the same ideas - see Nazi Germany for example.
There is no such thing as "law" in communist countries. It is all about power and communists will not tolerate any power independent of the Party.
In this you are mistaken.
There is indeed the concept of Law in dictatorial countries.
It is subordinated to the Good Of The People. Which is in turn defined by the Rulers.
So in China, the Law is defined as whatever the Party deems to protect The People.
The Soviet Union, under the 1936 Constitution, was the freest and most democratic country in the world. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, secret ballots, free elections and the right to fair trials and habeus corpus.
The only small problem was that all those rights were subordinated to the 'good of the workers,' which in practice meant the Communist Party could do whatever the hell it liked.
More to the point, you were required to do whatever the communist party liked.
Or to be exact, whatever the leader of the Communist party liked.
There is no such thing as "law" in communist countries. It is all about power and communists will not tolerate any power independent of the Party.
In this you are mistaken.
There is indeed the concept of Law in dictatorial countries.
It is subordinated to the Good Of The People. Which is in turn defined by the Rulers.
So in China, the Law is defined as whatever the Party deems to protect The People.
The Soviet Union, under the 1936 Constitution, was the freest and most democratic country in the world. Freedom of speech, religion, assembly, secret ballots, free elections and the right to fair trials and habeus corpus.
The only small problem was that all those rights were subordinated to the 'good of the workers,' which in practice meant the Communist Party could do whatever the hell it liked.
More to the point, you were required to do whatever the communist party liked.
Or to be exact, whatever the leader of the Communist party liked.
That's why Khrushchev danced that hornpipe.
Yes and no. On myriad minor matters you could easily find yourself at the whim of some local communist official, or the many party functionaries employed in workplaces or military units to watch everyone else. If they took a dislike to you they could just make up an offence.
Really interesting piece on PM about "lockdown fatigue" and the total lack of any scientific evidence for it. Even when it was being widely used to justify not locking down in early March. Part of a Newsnight report tonight.
The bigger risk of locking down very early IMO wasn’t the fatigue at the end, but that people wouldn’t take it seriously when there weren’t alarming statistics and anecdotes all over the news. We are seeing that now, with a much more relaxed attitude given that the current infection rate is very low.
As it was, once the alarming stories started to hit the news, people started locking themselves down, in advance of the government finally deciding to act. The mobility statistics show this quite clearly.
Lewis Goodall on R4 - the timing of lockdown was delayed because of SAGE belief in "lockdown fatigue" you couldn't lockdown too early or it would breakdown as infection peaked - but there wasn't much, if any scientific evidence that "lockdown fatigue" existed - as indeed it turned out....
I think these attempts to rewrite history are really futile.
Jenny Harries said publicly in March that they didn't want to apply the restrictions too soon because they thought it would lead to a second wave later. Quite clearly there was a herd immunity strategy.
At the very first national televised press conference, it was explicitly stated that the government actively wanted more infections, for just that reason. At the same time, however, people were deciding that they didn’t fancy it.
Comments
Do I need to explain the difference between 📉and 📈 or do you know what the difference is?
(1) People not feeling frightened about CV19. This could happen because there's a vaccine, and people are getting it, and there is optimism that they will personally will get it soon. Or alternatively, it could happen because the virus's incidence starts to seriously wane, as it has done in Sweden.
(2) The economy needs to start re-opening. Right now, in California, Arizona, Texas and Florida, the economy is shutting down again. Unemployment is going to start rising again in these areas. This needs to start being reversed, and people need to feel optimistic.
It's possible both these things happen for him. But it's looking less and less likely that they will both be in place by the beginning of November.
It's not clear to me why you seek to sustain this palpable nonsense. Is there a medical reason?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guildford-man-has-manslaughter-sentence-increased
That's a bad one. Was it the decisive part of the evidence? If so, hard to see how the conviction can't be quashed.
Moreover, might the investigators find themselves in the dock for perjury?
An extreme comparison rising to absurdity perhaps? Well it started out as absurdity.
I make no bones about disliking the man, but people need to rein it in so dislike does not mean critical of something like that for a reason as stupid as that at least.
Dont let Boris make us stupid by how we react to him.
In an alternate universe the FSA never existed and the Bank of England never lost control of financial stability oversight and RBS was prevented from emptying it's cash reserves to buy ABN from under the nose of Barclays and HBOS would have been forced to adhere to the minimum 8% Basel II capital requirements with actual quality assets and not just labelled a bunch of worthless rubbish as AAA rated. In that universe the UK banking sector didn't complete seize up for a year and we didn't have anywhere near as bad a recession.
As I've said many times the deficits from 2002-2007 were bad, but they are completely obliterated by just how awful the 2001 banking regulatory reforms were. Brown designed a system that was destined to fail in exactly the manner it failed. He put lesser people in charge of a sector and took away the tools the Bank of England had to keep banks in line with capital requirements and asset quality.
In the pantheon of terrible chancellors and PMs, Brown sits at the top looking down at the rest. He was completey awful.
I would hope we'll see early data out of the Oxford Vaccine by mid-September.
I personally find it improbable that a Conservative government would have done more to squash City excess and its tendency to ape Wall St but, as you say, it's not provable either way and, no, the Brown bar is not high.
There, see? Objective to a fault.
If these figures from 7 years ago remain representative, it's around a quarter.
https://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/22242/1/transform-justice_appeals-report.pdf
http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/appeals-are-the-lifeblood-of-a-functioning-criminal-justice-system-but-we-may-need-a-transfusion/
Edit: but I think this is better. Try page 26:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/coa-criminal-div-2016-17-2.pdf
That suggests about one in five appeals against a sentence are allowed.
The case was in 2010 at the height of the :Post Office scandal.
https://www.twitter.com/i_miss_hk/status/1288472023111352320
I suspect every Hong Kong activist with a passport is making plans to get out, fast.
Just as on here, David, Alistair, Cyclefree et al write the headers, but TSE chooses the pictures. (TSE hasn't of course ever made a mistake like this!)
Now I would say that that post office story is an absolute scandal but it really does shouldn't have an impact on this case.
This is the conversation that happened at HBOS:
Analyst - I've got a great idea boss, we should buy riskier asset classes for our liquidity buffer and get a 5-6% annual return for it but class them as AAA rated.
Boss - But the regulator won't allow it.
Everyone else in the room laughs at the joke by the boss.
Had they done and taken some action, the financial crisis here would not have been quite so disastrous.
Fingers crossed for the next phase of the inhaled interferon trials.
https://twitter.com/dbernstein/status/1288501357381447680
Highly regulated markets can give investors a false sense of security. A sense that the regulator has this 'covered'. Bet big, because we are watching.
Or not.
Desist forthwith or I will (with a heavy heart) have to cancel you.
SARS-CoV-2 viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding and infectiousness: a living systematic review and meta-analysis
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.25.20162107v1
...Background Viral load kinetics and the duration of viral shedding are important determinants for disease transmission. We aim i) to characterise viral load dynamics, duration of viral RNA, and viable virus shedding of SARS-CoV-2 in various body fluids and ii) to compare SARS-CoV-2 viral dynamics with SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Europe PMC, preprint servers and grey literature were searched to retrieve all articles reporting viral dynamics and duration of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV shedding. We excluded case reports and case series with < 5 patients, or studies that did not report shedding duration from symptom onset. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020181914. Findings: Seventy-nine studies on SARS-CoV-2, 8 on SARS-CoV-1, and 11 on MERS-CoV were included. Mean SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding duration in upper respiratory tract, lower respiratory tract, stool and serum were 17.0, 14.6, 17.2 and 16.6 days, respectively. Maximum duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding reported in URT, LRT, stool and serum was 83, 59, 35 and 60 days, respectively. Pooled mean duration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding was positively associated with age (p=0.002), but not gender (p = 0.277). No study to date has detected live virus beyond day nine of illness despite persistently high viral loads. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appears to peak in the first week of illness, while SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV peak later. Conclusion: Although SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding in respiratory and stool can be prolonged, duration of viable virus is relatively short-lived. Thus, detection of viral RNA cannot be used to infer infectiousness. High SARS-CoV-2 titres are detectable in the first week of illness with an early peak observed at symptom onset to day 5 of illness. This review underscores the importance of early case finding and isolation, as well as public education on the spectrum of illness. However, given potential delays in the isolation of patients, effective containment of SARS-CoV-2 may be challenging even with an early detection and isolation strategy....
https://order-order.com/2020/07/29/number-10-spokesman-runners-and-riders/
The year before Labour came to power in 1997, the deficit was 3% of GDP and the debt was 37% of GDP. Labour's first term saw both measures fall, while during Labour's second and third terms they returned to pretty much their state in 1996/97.
My point which you refused to accept is that the state of the deficit in 1996/97 was that it was being reduced. It's state was 📉. From 2002-07 despite the lack of a cyclical crash the state of the deficit was that it was increased. It's state was 📈.
Now do you accept that 📉 is not the same as 📈 or not? Do you still claim they are the same state?
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1288478458167926784?s=20
https://twitter.com/kevverage/status/1288475329686908928?s=20
I wonder if he genuinely believes that nonsense explanation. Based on what he said, repeatedly and over a period of time, he is a racist. But he obviously knows being racist is bad, so either he's pulled a bullcrap explanation out in desperation, or he's thinking 'Racism is bad, I am not bad, therefore I cannot be racist'. And yet in his own words he definitely was talking about an entire race:
My comments should not have been directed to all Jews or Jewish people
Meaning that they were so directed.
And yet by still seeking to deflect from what he said, it is hard to believe he actually accepts he was wrong and will change his ways.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288509568578777088?s=20
EDIT: And the NRS figure is mentioned and discussed in the daily press conference.
IF they are trying to hide it they aren't doing a very good job
Even when it was being widely used to justify not locking down in early March.
Part of a Newsnight report tonight.
Was this when Cummings was an "observer" during the SAGE meetings?
It was about society as a whole being unwilling or unable to follow the guidelines after a certain time.
All the evidence is that this never occurred and compliance remained very high.
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1288500620496908288?s=20
What I love is that lefties took two days off from virtue signalling on twitter, in order to signal some virtue, and the minute they decided to return, their hero was apologising for their trade rag mixing up two black blokes!!!
There is indeed the concept of Law in dictatorial countries.
It is subordinated to the Good Of The People. Which is in turn defined by the Rulers.
So in China, the Law is defined as whatever the Party deems to protect The People.
The only small problem was that all those rights were subordinated to the 'good of the workers,' which in practice meant the Communist Party could do whatever the hell it liked.
Jenny Harries said publicly in March that they didn't want to apply the restrictions too soon because they thought it would lead to a second wave later. Quite clearly there was a herd immunity strategy.
That's why Khrushchev danced that hornpipe.
As it was, once the alarming stories started to hit the news, people started locking themselves down, in advance of the government finally deciding to act. The mobility statistics show this quite clearly.