Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No, they are fundamentally wrong. Humans have been eating an omnivorous balanced diet since the dawn of time.
It's absurd.
I've changed my diet this year, I'm eating more meat, eggs and cheese - and fewer processed carbs, breads and potato. Not felt better and healthier in years.
The human body evolved to consume meat. If people want to not do so, I respect their choice - we've chosen not to live in caves either - but anyone tries to tell me that I "shouldn't" can take a long walk off a short pier. I'm not interested in their thoughts.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
The argument amongst Scot Nats that Scotland hasn't had its fair share of influence in UK government is one of those arguments which is so utterly raving bonkers that you wonder how anyone putting it forward can manage to eat their breakfast without absent-mindedly feeding it to the cat. I mean, I know memories are short, but it's only 10 years since the UK had a Scottish PM representing a Scottish constituency, as a member of a party stuffed to the gunwales with Scots.
Ooh, a wee slice of ethnic nationalist pie.
When do you foresee a Scot, let alone one representing a Scottish constituency, next becoming pm? This century?
Depends who the Scots vote for, doesn't it? But I see you've changed tack. Shall we start by agreeing that, in the past - from say 1800 until 2010 - Scots had a disproportionately large say in the running of British affairs?
I would imagine almost all of them, including Brown, would have described themselves as primarily British. That project (with the hearty cooperation of your party and its politicians) is now defunct, you just haven't realised it yet.
So you're whole argument boils down to unionists aren't real Scots? It's sad that a whole political movement is so incredibly negative.
Please guys, get a new asshole/argument.
Is it possible for you to have a discussion with anyone without being so sarcastic or snide?
Yep, just not with people about whose opinion I'm not overly bothered.
Charming.
So why do you spend so much time on here debating with them then?
I've just said that there are people worth debating, others not.
Veganism is a feature of Taiwanese Buddhists. Around 15% of the population. I heartily suggest a visit to one of their restaurants if anyone ever ventures out that way. And then tell me it ain't good. Yum!
I live in a city where Gujerati vegetarians are a substantial part of the population, alongside Sikhs and others. There are no shortage of meat eating places too, but the quality of vegan and vegetarian food is so good that is easy to not eat meat without even noticing.
Big difference between vegan and vegetarian, though, especially over an extended period,
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No they are not. Veganism is a lifestyle that can only be supported when there is a large amount of foods available. If you are starving or malnourished, you will eat anything you can get your hands on.
Which for most of the world's population tends to be one staple food like rice or cassava, both pretty vegan options. Why do you think the potato famine was a thing?
Try going on holiday to France with a friend who is vegetarian. It’s better now, but twenty years ago?
Italy was much better: lots of great pasta dishes that don’t use meat. Luckily she was not fussy about cheese, adopting a “don’t ask” policy.
Yes - been there with a young family, one vegetarian, back then. France was pretty crap and uncompromising; Italy fantastic.
Had dinner 25 years ago in Paris with a vegetarian English solicitor and a French bigwig the solicitor was pandering to. Solicitor had ordering anxiety and was visibly relieved when he negotiated himself a main course themed around marrow. It turned out not to be vegetable marrow...
When I was a kid I ordered sweetbread in Paris thinking it was sweetmeat.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
Going for the classic "people of Scottish bloodlines MUST be allowed to vote to stop the nasty blood and soil ethno nationalists."
English people living in Scotland get a vote but Scots living in England dont? How would those Scots living in England prove they were Scottish anyway>
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
Going for the classic "people of Scottish bloodlines MUST be allowed to vote to stop the nasty blood and soil ethno nationalists."
English people living in Scotland get a vote but Scots living in England dont? How would those Scots living in England prove they were Scottish anyway>
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
Palm Oil plantations too. They’re a menace.
I've been converted to accepting palm oil, though I think it needs to be farmed more sustainably. In terms of density of oil gained by hectare palm oil is incredible. The issue is that nations that grow it aren't doing it sustainably, this is the kind of thing the aid budget should be used for. We have no chance of ever making palm oil in the UK, but we can contribute money towards sustainable development of palm oil plantations.
The U.K. is working closely with Gabon on exactly that. They are doing a great job.
Try going on holiday to France with a friend who is vegetarian. It’s better now, but twenty years ago?
Italy was much better: lots of great pasta dishes that don’t use meat. Luckily she was not fussy about cheese, adopting a “don’t ask” policy.
Yes - been there with a young family, one vegetarian, back then. France was pretty crap and uncompromising; Italy fantastic.
Had dinner 25 years ago in Paris with a vegetarian English solicitor and a French bigwig the solicitor was pandering to. Solicitor had ordering anxiety and was visibly relieved when he negotiated himself a main course themed around marrow. It turned out not to be vegetable marrow...
When I was a kid I ordered sweetbread in Paris thinking it was sweetmeat.
My Dad made me eat it all.
Interesting how meat means bread, and vice versa, in those two words.
Going for the classic "people of Scottish bloodlines MUST be allowed to vote to stop the nasty blood and soil ethno nationalists."
If it’s Scottish bloodlines I’d get a vote. As my distant great something grandfather left Scotland sometime in the middle of the 18th century (family tradition is that he was on the wrong side at the Battle of Culloden, though it is a bit hazy as to which the wrong side was) I’m fairly sure that it’s nothing to do with me.
@Pagan2 are you the type who will kick off if an acquaintance suggests going to a different restaurant which has a more varied vegan selection?
Not at all I will kick off and refuse if they wish to goto a restaurant that only has vegan options though
I'm an enthusiastic meat eater, but there are some great Indian vegetarian restaurants around Drummond Street in London.
I really don't mind so much despite my quip eating something vegetarian however I do want the choice not to. There have been times I have eaten something that is vegetarian....though not vegan definitely because it sounded nice. You insist on going to a restaurant where your choice is forced on me and that is rude. It would be like me taking a friend that doesnt like fish to a seafood restaurant
But 'meat' or 'not meat' is just one of many choices.
'Indian' or 'Italian' is another. My choice of Indian precludes you getting spaghetti carbonara.
It's rude for hosts to fail to take into account the desires of their guests. But it's also true that there are types of cuisine - like kosher (no pig or shellfish) or Indian/Hindu (no cows) - that omit certain ingredients.
I'd check everyone was OK with an Indian vegetarian restaurant before booking it, but I'd also think someone was a little... shall we say... closed minded, if they refused to try a cuisine type because of the absence of one ingredient.
I have a friend that doesnt like indian food. When we are out with him we dont goto indian restaurants. I don't see whats inconsiderate about making sure you goto a place where everyone can order something they are happy with.
In the case of your indian vegetarian restaurant. I am sure the food is great. However while I have tried lots of indian vegetarian dishes (mainly as sides admittedly) I cant say I have liked many. I am not partial to spinach, chick peas or panneer which most seem to contain at least one of. So I would probably just politely order the cheapest and nibble a little. But I doubt I would go home thinking that was a damn good meal
These Indian vegetarian are not vegetarian because they are catering to people who don't like meat, it's because they're regional South Indian restaurants, and the local cuisine doesn't have meat in it (because they're Hindus and there are no sheep in the area to eat).
I didn't suggest they were, I merely commented if major components were spinach, chickpeas or paneer then I was unlikely to like them.
Personally my view when selecting a restaurant is everyone should be able to find something they are happy to order and will enjoy. If they are grudgingly ordering the thing they think they will find least offensive then I failed to be considerate.
That is the only point I was making. A lot of vegetarian dishes have things in them that people while not necessarily eating meat in principle will not like the taste of. For example I love chilli however if you put red kidney beans in it not touching it with a barge pole. Its not that they are vegetables I just hate the texture and taste of them and it turns a pleasant meal into an ordeal to endure.
Its often not about the lack of meat but the crap that gets thrown in instead
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No, they are fundamentally wrong. Humans have been eating an omnivorous balanced diet since the dawn of time.
It's absurd.
I've changed my diet this year, I'm eating more meat, eggs and cheese - and fewer processed carbs, breads and potato. Not felt better and healthier in years.
The human body evolved to consume meat. If people want to not do so, I respect their choice - we've chosen not to live in caves either - but anyone tries to tell me that I "shouldn't" can take a long walk off a short pier. I'm not interested in their thoughts.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Try going on holiday to France with a friend who is vegetarian. It’s better now, but twenty years ago?
Italy was much better: lots of great pasta dishes that don’t use meat. Luckily she was not fussy about cheese, adopting a “don’t ask” policy.
Yes - been there with a young family, one vegetarian, back then. France was pretty crap and uncompromising; Italy fantastic.
Had dinner 25 years ago in Paris with a vegetarian English solicitor and a French bigwig the solicitor was pandering to. Solicitor had ordering anxiety and was visibly relieved when he negotiated himself a main course themed around marrow. It turned out not to be vegetable marrow...
When I was a kid I ordered sweetbread in Paris thinking it was sweetmeat.
My Dad made me eat it all.
I had the opposite reaction to mince pies when very young, as I was disappointed they did not contain actual mince.
A few years ago I was at the Christmas market in Toulouse and to my delight found a stall selling mince pies with actual mince.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
No, I eat meat, just find your paranoia about a perfectly normal lifestyle choice approaching the point of delusion.
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No they are not. Veganism is a lifestyle that can only be supported when there is a large amount of foods available. If you are starving or malnourished, you will eat anything you can get your hands on.
Which for most of the world's population tends to be one staple food like rice or cassava, both pretty vegan options. Why do you think the potato famine was a thing?
Because the only thing they could easily get their hands on was potatoes, but that did not make them potatotarians - they ate anything they could get in a pot. Why do you think Irish Stew was a thing? Or Cockaleekie soup? Or, heaven forbid, haggis?
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
The Galsworthy fellow who tweeted it is not exactly an neutral source if I remember him correctly
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
I can only see one definitely vegan option there. The pasta will contain egg if it is good, and the risotto ought to be made with chicken stock.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Parmesan in the penne, chicken stock in the risotto.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
I can only see one definitely vegan option there. The pasta will contain egg if it is good, and the risotto ought to be made with chicken stock.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Parmesan in the penne, chicken stock in the risotto.
I knew people would find a way to argue, but those dishes could easily be made under vegan rules and offered without any fuss
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Parmesan in the penne, chicken stock in the risotto.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
I don't believe so. The issue is with the nature of the Treaty of 1707. The UK is not a supranational or intergovernmental institution like the EU; the Treaty of Union is not at all the same sort of arrangement as the Treaty of Rome, and the Scottish Parliament is most definitely not a revival of the pre-1707 body. England and Scotland have no sovereign personality. They both dissolved themselves.
The very first words written into the record of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were that it was specifically a reconvention of that closed in 1707. That was not challenged at the time.
Just saying something doesn’t make it so
The 1707 parliament was an independent body.
The modern parliament is a creation of Westminster and subordinate to it with defined powers
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
No, they are fundamentally wrong. Humans have been eating an omnivorous balanced diet since the dawn of time.
It's absurd.
I've changed my diet this year, I'm eating more meat, eggs and cheese - and fewer processed carbs, breads and potato. Not felt better and healthier in years.
The human body evolved to consume meat. If people want to not do so, I respect their choice - we've chosen not to live in caves either - but anyone tries to tell me that I "shouldn't" can take a long walk off a short pier. I'm not interested in their thoughts.
Would it be our blunt teeth, sideways-movable jaws, weak stomach acids, or long intestinal tracts that have evolved the way you think?
Not interested in ethics? Don't care what happens to the other species we share the planet with? That's not very "evolved".
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
You are wrong Richard
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations under the Call Off Contract Agreement, including exit management, and other associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7 years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name Workplace address Workplace Phone Number Workplace email address Names Job Title Compensation Tenure Information Qualifications or Certifications Nationality Education & training history Previous work history Personal Interests References and referee details Driving license details National insurance number Bank statements Utility bills Job title or role Job application details Start date End date & reason for termination Contract type Compensation data Photographic Facial Image Biometric data Birth certificates IP Address Details of physical and psychological health or medical condition Next of kin & emergency contact details Record of absence, time tracking & annual leave
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
I can only see one definitely vegan option there. The pasta will contain egg if it is good, and the risotto ought to be made with chicken stock.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Parmesan in the penne, chicken stock in the risotto.
I knew people would find a way to argue, but those dishes could easily be made under vegan rules and offered without any fuss
Pretty sure that they would have to be described as vegan on the menu, thereby triggering all sorts of fuss it would appear.
Precisely the point I made in the previous thread.
It's a thing.
I am increasingly convinced by my theory that Starmer, in 2024, will campaign to reenter EEA, or on a referendum to Rejoin the EU.
It is the only way he can solve his Scottish problem, and, besides, by then, it might be an EXTREMELY popular position.
I don't think he will. He will campaign for "closer links" and "more co-operation" but he won't poke the hornet's nest with a referendum to rejoin.
He might renegotiate EEA entry on the sly after 2024 though. Personally, I think he'll just add to and beef-up the FTA and give more migration rights.
But he needs something to solve his Scotch problem.
Sturgeon will win in 2021 and demand indyref 2; the Tories, facing very possible defeat in this, will clearly say No ("once in a generation"). Yes this may well stoke grievance, but if the alternative is the ACTUAL loss of the Union then a bit of grievance can be tolerated. It might even work to the advantage of London if the Nats go mad and declare UDI or whatever,
So, we reach 2024, and Starmer is doing well in the polls but winning a majority without Scotland seems impossible. And the Nats will demand indyref2 as the price of support.
But if Starmer offers the Scots, and everyone else, a rethink on EU membership, then suddenly Scots might look more kindly on him.
My bet is there is a decent majority in Scotland for staying in the UK if it comes with EU membership. Game changer for Labour in Scotland?
If the SNP stand on a Referendum 2 platform and win a majority at Holyrood, Westminster opposing said referendum is constitutionally impossible in my view.
I don’t think that a majority is an issue. If the SNP got 40% , the little Green helpers got 5% but parties committed to not having a referendum got 55% I don’t think that is a problem. If the SNP + Greens get 50%+ that’s different and I think that the case for a second referendum becomes unanswerable.
But if Johnson still says 'No', what can the SNP do?
Follow the Catalan route ?
I don't think Sturgeon would do that. Such a referendum would lack legitimacy given that No voters will be urged to abstain. An even more extreme response - again unlikely I believe - would be an attempt at UDI. Were that to happen , Westminster could suspend Holyrood just as the Heath Government suspended Stormont back in Spring 1972. It would be likely to generate serious civil strife within Scotland too - with the pro-Union communities inclined to accept the continued authority of Westminster whilst Nationalists followed Holyrood.
United Nations. Which a refusal to allow a referendum mandated by election results would lead to.
Didn't happen in the Catalan dispute.
Scotland will get its second vote, but it'll most likely have to wait until that generation is up, or until the Labour minority Government opportunity presents itself.
Different situation, legally: very much so. Equal signatories to the 1707 union, remember.
I don't believe so. The issue is with the nature of the Treaty of 1707. The UK is not a supranational or intergovernmental institution like the EU; the Treaty of Union is not at all the same sort of arrangement as the Treaty of Rome, and the Scottish Parliament is most definitely not a revival of the pre-1707 body. England and Scotland have no sovereign personality. They both dissolved themselves.
The very first words written into the record of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 were that it was specifically a reconvention of that closed in 1707. That was not challenged at the time.
Just saying something doesn’t make it so
The 1707 parliament was an independent body.
The modern parliament is a creation of Westminster and subordinate to it with defined powers
I note that the same people “sure” about the constitutional and legal status of Scotland are also the same people who were “sure” it was totally lawful for Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
I'm not sure. First, there may be another contract. Secondly, there are references to terms at paragraph numbers not included in that document so there must be more somewhere.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
I can only see one definitely vegan option there. The pasta will contain egg if it is good, and the risotto ought to be made with chicken stock.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Parmesan in the penne, chicken stock in the risotto.
I knew people would find a way to argue, but those dishes could easily be made under vegan rules and offered without any fuss
I’ve just looked up Arrabiata sauce as I thought it contained anchovies, but I must have confused it with puttanesca (a sauce with a name you are better off not knowing the translation of).
I’ve now got an idea for dinner tomorrow, as I’ve got the ingredients for arrabiata already.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
I can only see one definitely vegan option there. The pasta will contain egg if it is good, and the risotto ought to be made with chicken stock.
Labour still have a bit of work to do in the Midlands.
Labour has an enormous amount of work to do almost everywhere South of the Humber, save for inner London. The fact that the Tories aren't doing worse isn't merely, as was suggested earlier, a product of the extraordinary circumstances created by Brexit and the Plague. Labour also has a dreadful image problem.
I'm not sure about that.
Their brand of politics (wokeness, veganism, Greta-loving, "ist" obsessed, and open immigration mindset) is seeping into the home counties through the 20 and 30 somethings, and those 40 and early 50 somethings who want to impress them.
Don't see much evidence for that around here TBH, and this is Hertfordshire, not Cornwall or the Welsh Marches.
Besides, the more Starmer sucks up to his core vote with metro left-liberal policies, the worse his position in the rubble of the Red Wall becomes.
One of my pubs a few miles away has gone full vegan-twat. I went there on Monday and they had 3 vegan dishes on a 7 dish menu, one fish, and then just "burger", "chicken burger" or "steak" as the other options. And their website now proclaims their veganism.
Shit. I walked out. It's only a short step from that to all the staff wearing BLM t-shirts.
I'm close(ish) to trendy liberal SW surrey, full of woke lycra louts, so that's perhaps where the infection is coming from.
Why do you have an irrational hatred of veganism? I’m not a vegan, but will happily enjoy a meal without meat often. It’s not the end of the world, and can be quite delicious in fact.
Maybe stop being so closed-minded and judgemental, and if you don’t like it, just don’t go.
“Eating meat” is not a personality just like “veganism” is not a personality.
Veganism is peak virtue signalling. Soy bean farms are destroying the rainforest and almond farms are responsible for droughts in California and the deaths of many, many millions of bees.
It's also incredibly bad for you, unless you're on an extremely complex cocktail of supplements, and even then it's debatable. When forced on children, it amounts to willful neglect.
Complete and total bollocks. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin not found in a vegan diet, and meat production is far more destructive of the rain forest water, and polluting of both rivers and air.
I am not vegan bug undeniably it is a much smaller environmental footprint.
It's much harder to get a balanced and healthy diet: your choices are more restricted and you have to plan all your meals.
Sounds really fun, doesn't it?
Of course if it was really about the environment then we'd be asked to eat less and more sustainably cultivated meat (some rather than none) as part of a healthy balanced diet. Fair enough, you might say.
But we're not because as its heart is an extreme animal rights PETA ideology that is trying to piggyback on climate change the same way that Marxists are trying to piggyback on BLM.
See it for what it is.
Nah, it is just a lifestyle choice to be freely made.
You protest too much like an evangelical preacher about fornication.
Err, what?
You know the vegans are right, and are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance.
I don’t think it’s fair to say all vegans are stuck in a mixture of denial and cognitive dissonance, although I would agree with you that some are.
No, it is @Casino_Royale that is stuck in denial and cognitive dissonance, hence his riduculously over the top opinions on veganism.
No, I simply disagree with you.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
If a restaurant has Steak, Hamburger, Fish and Chips, Chicken Burger, Penne Arrabiata, Mushroom Risotto and Vegetable Curry on the menu , that would be three vegan options and I doubt many people would bat an eyelid/realise
Parmesan in the penne, chicken stock in the risotto.
I knew people would find a way to argue, but those dishes could easily be made under vegan rules and offered without any fuss
Pretty sure that they would have to be described as vegan on the menu, thereby triggering all sorts of fuss it would appear.
Someone who would be upset that their Mushroom Risotto, Penne Arrabiata or Vegetable Curry were vegan doesn't sound like the kind of person I'd like to have dinner with... I come here for that kind of wallyness!
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
You are wrong Richard
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations under the Call Off Contract Agreement, including exit management, and other associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7 years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name Workplace address Workplace Phone Number Workplace email address Names Job Title Compensation Tenure Information Qualifications or Certifications Nationality Education & training history Previous work history Personal Interests References and referee details Driving license details National insurance number Bank statements Utility bills Job title or role Job application details Start date End date & reason for termination Contract type Compensation data Photographic Facial Image Biometric data Birth certificates IP Address Details of physical and psychological health or medical condition Next of kin & emergency contact details Record of absence, time tracking & annual leave
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
You are wrong Richard
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations under the Call Off Contract Agreement, including exit management, and other associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7 years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name Workplace address Workplace Phone Number Workplace email address Names Job Title Compensation Tenure Information Qualifications or Certifications Nationality Education & training history Previous work history Personal Interests References and referee details Driving license details National insurance number Bank statements Utility bills Job title or role Job application details Start date End date & reason for termination Contract type Compensation data Photographic Facial Image Biometric data Birth certificates IP Address Details of physical and psychological health or medical condition Next of kin & emergency contact details Record of absence, time tracking & annual leave
Yes, next of kin etc makes it clear that the supplier gets 7 year access to medical details.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
You are wrong Richard
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations under the Call Off Contract Agreement, including exit management, and other associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7 years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name Workplace address Workplace Phone Number Workplace email address Names Job Title Compensation Tenure Information Qualifications or Certifications Nationality Education & training history Previous work history Personal Interests References and referee details Driving license details National insurance number Bank statements Utility bills Job title or role Job application details Start date End date & reason for termination Contract type Compensation data Photographic Facial Image Biometric data Birth certificates IP Address Details of physical and psychological health or medical condition Next of kin & emergency contact details Record of absence, time tracking & annual leave
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
So it's OK to accuse someone of having done something because it is plausible to say that they might well have done it?
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
It’s outside the scope of their powers. They are a devolved authority which derives its power from Westminster not a sovereign body in its own right
Going for the classic "people of Scottish bloodlines MUST be allowed to vote to stop the nasty blood and soil ethno nationalists."
He's not saying that. It's obvious from his figure of 795000 that he is talking about those who were born in Scotland and who now live in other parts of Britain. If he were talking about those of ethnic Scottish descent the figure would be far higher.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
Oh FFS, it lasted 10 millennia at least and succumbed to human ingenuity, not to the supposed superior viability of less virulent versions of itself.
Yes, next of kin etc makes it clear that the supplier gets 7 year access to medical details.
No, it does not.
I know these contracts are a bit unusual for someone who hasn't seen one before, but you have to read the whole thing, not just jump onto keywords.
The customer is listed as the department of Health, yet the data set is clearly relating to individuals rather than an organisation, at a later stage the customer is redacted.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
It’s outside the scope of their powers. They are a devolved authority which derives its power from Westminster not a sovereign body in its own right
Technically true.
However unless we are to say the Scots are prisoners who aren't fit to determine their own future democratically then any mandate for a S30 order should be honoured. If that is what the Scots elect then so be it, that is democracy.
Plus if you're a unionist then you should want to keep the Scots in the union because they want to be in it. If after a clear and unambiguous manifesto win to hold a referendum* you tell the Scots they're not fit to decide this issue for themselves you are signing the death warrant of the union. The second that happens you guarantee that the Scottish public will vote Yes next time.
* No that didn't happen last time, it was far too wishy-washy.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
So it's OK to accuse someone of having done something because it is plausible to say that they might well have done it?
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
No. I have said that it is plausible that the government might well do this and I have given the reasons why it might be plausible.
Having now reviewed the contract briefly, there is no provision at present for any personal data to be handed over but there is (a) provision for there to be further agreement on the sharing of personal data; (b) further agreement on how such data is to be treated; (c) the definition of personal data is very wide; and (d) the time during which it can be processed is the duration of this particular contract + 7 years.
As for the “poor bankers”, very very few of them ever challenged my team’s findings and those that did lost their case in court.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
The common cold is not a virus. It is an illness, most often caused by rhinoviruses, sometimes by others including coronaviruses.
Trying to wipe out all of the viruses that cause the common cold might cause untold effects rather like when they tried to kill all the sparrows in China. Just saying it might.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
You are wrong Richard
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations under the Call Off Contract Agreement, including exit management, and other associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7 years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name Workplace address Workplace Phone Number Workplace email address Names Job Title Compensation Tenure Information Qualifications or Certifications Nationality Education & training history Previous work history Personal Interests References and referee details Driving license details National insurance number Bank statements Utility bills Job title or role Job application details Start date End date & reason for termination Contract type Compensation data Photographic Facial Image Biometric data Birth certificates IP Address Details of physical and psychological health or medical condition Next of kin & emergency contact details Record of absence, time tracking & annual leave
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
Oh FFS, it lasted 10 millennia at least and succumbed to human ingenuity, not to the supposed superior viability of less virulent versions of itself.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
The common cold is about fifteen different viruses (including several coronaviruses), some of them more common than others.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
It’s outside the scope of their powers. They are a devolved authority which derives its power from Westminster not a sovereign body in its own right
That's not been definitively answered. They can't unilaterally give effect to a referendum, but whether they can hold one is an open question.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
You are wrong Richard
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations under the Call Off Contract Agreement, including exit management, and other associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7 years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name Workplace address Workplace Phone Number Workplace email address Names Job Title Compensation Tenure Information Qualifications or Certifications Nationality Education & training history Previous work history Personal Interests References and referee details Driving license details National insurance number Bank statements Utility bills Job title or role Job application details Start date End date & reason for termination Contract type Compensation data Photographic Facial Image Biometric data Birth certificates IP Address Details of physical and psychological health or medical condition Next of kin & emergency contact details Record of absence, time tracking & annual leave
For heaven's sake!
That's about staff working on the project!
I'm wrong Richard!
Kudos to you for acknowledging that.
We should all make a note of where we were the day this happened
And of course viral evolution is often host evolution. Consider, for example, what happened to the indigenous population of the Americas when they encountered our common viruses.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
It’s outside the scope of their powers. They are a devolved authority which derives its power from Westminster not a sovereign body in its own right
That's not been definitively answered. They can't unilaterally give effect to a referendum, but whether they can hold one is an open question.
Interesting, why don't they do that? Just hold a non binding referendum
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
It’s outside the scope of their powers. They are a devolved authority which derives its power from Westminster not a sovereign body in its own right
That's not been definitively answered. They can't unilaterally give effect to a referendum, but whether they can hold one is an open question.
Interesting, why don't they do that? Just hold a non binding referendum
Even doing that would probably still end up in the courts to determine whether it was within their powers, and Westminster could always pass legislation to explicitly stop it.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
The common cold is not a virus. It is an illness, most often caused by rhinoviruses, sometimes by others including coronaviruses.
Trying to wipe out all of the viruses that cause the common cold might cause untold effects rather like when they tried to kill all the sparrows in China. Just saying it might.
"The common cold" is the name for the effects of a family of viruses.
And 'might' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your second paragraph.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
The common cold is not a virus. It is an illness, most often caused by rhinoviruses, sometimes by others including coronaviruses.
Trying to wipe out all of the viruses that cause the common cold might cause untold effects rather like when they tried to kill all the sparrows in China. Just saying it might.
"The common cold" is the name for the effects of a family of viruses.
And 'might' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your second paragraph.
I imagine eliminating the common cold would majorly damage the human immune system, rather like people who don't allow kids to be exposed to any germs then they have a weaker immune system - but on steroids.
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
The common cold is not a virus. It is an illness, most often caused by rhinoviruses, sometimes by others including coronaviruses.
Trying to wipe out all of the viruses that cause the common cold might cause untold effects rather like when they tried to kill all the sparrows in China. Just saying it might.
"The common cold" is the name for the effects of a family of viruses.
And 'might' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your second paragraph.
I imagine eliminating the common cold would majorly damage the human immune system, rather like people who don't allow kids to be exposed to any germs then they have a weaker immune system - but on steroids.
I seem to have picked up a cold today [or Tuesday] despite social distancing and wearing a mask.
This Government is destroying the Union day by day.
People on here were warning about this back in 2016 and that was with a more Conservative govt than the UKIP-lite we have now.
You are a beautiful example of the phenomena I've just posted about in response to @MaxPB
You have been driven mad by Brexit, and are now delighted that there's a new course of revenge that's potentially about to get served up on the table.
I do find it ironic that people insist that taking back control is ok regardless of the economic costs but it's not OK to give control back to a different group of people.
The only person I can think of on this site who is adamant there should be no second referendum even if the Scots vote to hold one is HYUFD - and he's a Remainer.
Not entirely. The result of a Holyrood election which sees turnout of circa 50% should not override a Referendum in respect of which 85% voted. The lower turnout for Holyrood v Westminster too would tend to suggest that voters in Scotland see it as a lower or secondary tier of authority.
The Holyrood election won't be overriding the Referendum. Overriding the referendum would be taking an SNP majority as a Yes vote. Instead the Holyrood election would merely set the stage for a new vote. Only a Yes Referendum can overturn the No.
As for lower turnout there is a very simple rule in politics: If you don't vote, you can't complain. If the 35% who didn't vote all don't want a second referendum then they should vote to say so. If they don't, that's their choice.
The SNP are seeking to use next year's Holyrood election to obtain a mandate - as they see it - to revist a decision taken by a clear margin in September 2014 on a turnout of circa 85%. The SNP First Minister at the time clearly stated that the decision then taken was to be binding 'for a generation'. A subsequent election on a circa 50% turnout for a second tier authority which lacks the authority to take such a decision cannot reasonably be viewed as a mandate - whether morally or legally. Holyrood can do no more than ask Westminster for such a vote . Westminster has every right to say 'No - Come back post 2035!'
That is a whacking fib - Salmond did not say indyref was binding for a generation, he just said it was th ekind of opportunity that comes along in a generation - and it had been since the first devolution vote was fiddled by Labour in 1978. ,
As any ful kno, once in a generation was written into the Edinburgh Agreement.
'Douglas Ross claimed in his BBC Good Morning Scotland interview that Nicola Sturgeon signed an agreement with the UK and Scottish Governments that the 2014 referendum would be a “once in a generation” vote.'
So D.Ross, the new satrap of the the Conservative & Unionist party in Scotland, was lying?
Not sure who this Salmon bloke is, seems a bit fishy.
You got me there.
Did you watch the video though?
No Parliament can bind its successor.
If the Scots want to decide its time for a new referendum that's their choice. If they think that it shouldn't happen for a generation that's their choice.
Its called democracy.
It’s outside the scope of their powers. They are a devolved authority which derives its power from Westminster not a sovereign body in its own right
That's not been definitively answered. They can't unilaterally give effect to a referendum, but whether they can hold one is an open question.
Interesting, why don't they do that? Just hold a non binding referendum
Even doing that would probably still end up in the courts to determine whether it was within their powers, and Westminster could always pass legislation to explicitly stop it.
Given what happened in Catalonia in similar circumstances better to simply boycott/ignore any wildcat referendum.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
So it's OK to accuse someone of having done something because it is plausible to say that they might well have done it?
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
Everyone knows that bankers are guilty of every wrongdoing since the original sin
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
So it's OK to accuse someone of having done something because it is plausible to say that they might well have done it?
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
Everyone knows that bankers are guilty of every wrongdoing since the original sin
No correct they dont all mutate in the same direction. At anyone time there will be 40 or 50 different mutations out there. Those less successful than the original will tend to die out as the original will beat them to turning a cell into a virus factory. Those equally succesful will survive and produce new mutations eventually. Those more successful will thrive and may end up edging out prior strains when competing for resources.....Surviving mutations will continue to mutate along different lines which is when you will get speciation
Viruses replicating in humans interact with the same environment so they have to work in similar ways to be successful. The viruses do not communicate and are not intelligent, but the successful strains are those that work with a human cell and that places limitations on them.
If one variation of this virus developed a feature that (say) stopped the heart of an infected person within an hour of infection then that virus would fail to spread. It would be a highly unsuccessful mutation.
If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread.
And like mathematics, there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong but only one way to be right - so a mutation is more likely to be unworkable than beneficial and thus removed from the virus gene pool.
"If a version of Covid arises that is non-lethal to humans then it is likely to become the dominant strain because there would be no reason to stop its spread."
Doesn`t it logically follow from this that, given time, viruses always become less serious to the host? It`s just a case of waiting for the right mutation.
Myxy proves you wrong. There were some fascinating studies on virulence
If by Myxy you are referring to myxomatosis, it has two vectors - the insects which bite the rabbits but whom the virus does not harm and the rabbits which it kills. As well as rabbits spreading the disease the insects spread it too...
Also, there are strains of rabbit emerging for which Myxomatosis is less lethal - the other side of the biological arms race.
Smallpox. Cowpox.
I get bored of saying that.
There were various strains of smallpox. The lethality varied across strains from about 33% to 100%. The more common strains were the less lethal ones.
Sorry but that is wrong. Your 33/100% figures are for the lethality of Variola major in various populations: 100% pregnant women, 30% the field. All the same strain. There was indeed a separate strain, variola minor, which killed no one at all (lesst than 1%) which, like cowpox, serves to rubbish the theory that less lethal versions become predominant.
And a fat lot of good it did the Smallpox virus which has now been (effectively) wiped out. The Common Cold, OTOH, is a highly successful virus
The common cold is not a virus. It is an illness, most often caused by rhinoviruses, sometimes by others including coronaviruses.
Trying to wipe out all of the viruses that cause the common cold might cause untold effects rather like when they tried to kill all the sparrows in China. Just saying it might.
"The common cold" is the name for the effects of a family of viruses.
And 'might' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your second paragraph.
Rhinoviruses and coronaviruses are not in the same family or even order but they are in the same class. A common cold can also be caused by influenza viruses which are not even in the same phylum.
Just saying that the thought of a mobilisation to wipe out all viruses that can cause the common cold - which nobody has actually suggested - gives me the heeby-jeebies.
The tweet doesn’t accurate reflect what trump said. He said a consequence of freedom being taken away in HK was that the US would keep all of the incentive subsidies it had given previously. He made a rather garbled mention of Nasdaq & nyse but it didn’t really make sense
The tweet doesn’t accurate reflect what trump said. He said a consequence of freedom being taken away in HK was that the US would keep all of the incentive subsidies it had given previously. He made a rather garbled mention of Nasdaq & nyse but it didn’t really make sense
Its not word for word what he said but it does accurately reflect it.
What interests me is that none of the “nothing to see here” crowd have even tried to explain why, as part of this reorganisation, McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project.
Why?
Am I the only person concerned by this?
"McKinsey should have access to our personal, financial, family, biometric and medical date for seven years after they finish work on this project."
You quote an article by someone called Beckie Smith, of whom I've never heard, , on a website I've never heard of, which doesn't include any links to any contact, and which seems rather confused.
Do you have a link to the contract which says what you claim?
I have given you the link. It may well be that 2+2 = 5, as I have specifically stated in the article. But the answer is for the government to be transparent about what is going on, precisely one of the issues I am complaining about.
Governments as you well know don’t publish contracts with private companies. But feel free to make an FOI request. Of course if they had made this announcement to Parliament rather than in the holidays and only to a limited number of journalists, the details of this reorganisation could have been fully spelt out, scrutinised and questions asked.
Where's the link?
Ah, it doesn't exist. As you say, Governments don’t publish contracts with private companies. That is exactly why I thought the article must be garbage, quite apart from the equally obvious point that McKinsey is hardly the type of organisation which is going to analyse zillions of personal records; they simply don't do that kind of stuff. They do airy-fairy strategic waffling.
I think you've been taken in by a silly article by whoever Beckie Smith is. She's jumped from a point about the data retention by the NHS body to a clearly absurd conclusion that McKinsey would have access to the data, simply because it has carried out a small contract.
That is your interpretation, both of what has been written and your assumption about what McKinsey might or might not do.
You may be right. This may be a 2+2=5 situation. But the lack of transparency and avoidance of scrutiny makes it very very hard to know the truth. And I’m afraid that, unlike you, I simply do not trust this government, in part because of their history of serial lying, from the PM down.
C'mon, Ms Cyclefree. You pride yourself in objectively assessing evidence. There is no serious evidence, none whatever, that McKinsey would have access to personal data, and the suggestion in that article that they would doesn't pass the most basic of plausibility tests. You of all people should not be sidetracked by dislike of the government into believing what looks like obvious tosh.
It’s not evidence. The contract is and when and if it comes out it can be reviewed.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
So it's OK to accuse someone of having done something because it is plausible to say that they might well have done it?
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
Everyone knows that bankers are guilty of every wrongdoing since the original sin
Merchant banker, Adam, 24 said...
"I have the secret of longevity".
Genesis Chapter 5, Verse 5.
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
will have to take their dogs for walks twice a day for a minimum of one hour in total will not be allowed to keep their dogs chained for long periods of time will not be allowed to leave dogs alone the whole day Breeders will be restricted to looking after a maximum of three litters and puppies will have to spend a minimum of four hours a day in human company to ensure they get socialised."
Comments
The human body evolved to consume meat. If people want to not do so, I respect their choice - we've chosen not to live in caves either - but anyone tries to tell me that I "shouldn't" can take a long walk off a short pier. I'm not interested in their thoughts.
And I have had a vegetarian meal.
But I have recovered from both!
😊
https://www.macsween.co.uk/products/delicious-every-day-vegetarian/
My Dad made me eat it all.
Veganism isn't complementary here: it seeks to eradicate and substitute. I mean, eliminating *all* animal products whatsoever from a human diet, including all fish, cheese, milk, eggs and honey. Eh? How is that healthy or natural for human beings?
It's a philosophy. It's an ideology. It's about purity and politics. It's not recommended by dietitians for infants, adolescents, pregnant woman or those breastfeeding and can only be sustained by healthy adults by careful planning.
It's utter madness. But it's as trendy as fuck so that's why we have to put up with people like you trying to say that the rest of us are the ones suffering from false consciousness.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/12/palm-oil-products-borneo-africa-environment-impact/
Probably not much company in a restaurant.
I've been doing the same as it happens.
https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/1a720c8a-85fd-4255-85ee-3c891c664bf0
A few years ago I was at the Christmas market in Toulouse and to my delight found a stall selling mince pies with actual mince.
Paragraph 10.11: "The Parties agree and acknowledge that it is not necessary for the Supplier to receive or gain access to any Personal Data from the Customer in relation to this Call-Off Contract."
Exactly as one would expect.
The article Ms Cyclefree cited is garbage.
I'm more than happy to run the English Yes campaign
They have free prescriptions and free University education yet it's never enough and they always want more
Plus now oil isn't important Scotland will be bankrupt within weeks and watching them discover that will Provide plenty of entertainment
The 1707 parliament was an independent body.
The modern parliament is a creation of Westminster and subordinate to it with defined powers
Not interested in ethics? Don't care what happens to the other species we share the planet with? That's not very "evolved".
10.15 processing data
Use of Personal Data- Managing the obligations
under the Call Off Contract
Agreement, including exit
management, and other
associated activities
Duration of the processing- For the duration of the Framework Contract plus 7
years.
Type of Personal Data: Full name
Workplace address
Workplace Phone Number
Workplace email address
Names
Job Title
Compensation
Tenure Information
Qualifications or
Certifications
Nationality
Education & training history
Previous work history
Personal Interests
References and referee
details
Driving license details
National insurance number
Bank statements
Utility bills
Job title or role
Job application details
Start date
End date & reason for
termination
Contract type
Compensation data
Photographic Facial Image
Biometric data
Birth certificates
IP Address
Details of physical and
psychological health or
medical condition
Next of kin & emergency
contact details
Record of absence, time
tracking & annual leave
They sound like Putin supporters when talking about homosexuals.
Complete lack of self awareness and rationality. Embarrassing.
It is not however obvious tosh.
I do think it plausible that a government (especially one where Cummings - whose views on the use of data are well known - has such influence) might well allow private firms it wants to partner with, as stated by Hancock in the last couple of days, to access and use data collected in the course of those projects. Such data is immensely valuable and private firms are perfectly well aware of this. You are, with all due respect, Richard, being naive in thinking otherwise.
Funny that.
I’ve now got an idea for dinner tomorrow, as I’ve got the ingredients for arrabiata already.
That's about staff working on the project!
I know these contracts are a bit unusual for someone who hasn't seen one before, but you have to read the whole thing, not just jump onto keywords.
Golly. Are those the rules of evidence you applied to all those poor bankers?
However unless we are to say the Scots are prisoners who aren't fit to determine their own future democratically then any mandate for a S30 order should be honoured. If that is what the Scots elect then so be it, that is democracy.
Plus if you're a unionist then you should want to keep the Scots in the union because they want to be in it. If after a clear and unambiguous manifesto win to hold a referendum* you tell the Scots they're not fit to decide this issue for themselves you are signing the death warrant of the union. The second that happens you guarantee that the Scottish public will vote Yes next time.
* No that didn't happen last time, it was far too wishy-washy.
Having now reviewed the contract briefly, there is no provision at present for any personal data to be handed over but there is (a) provision for there to be further agreement on the sharing of personal data; (b) further agreement on how such data is to be treated; (c) the definition of personal data is very wide; and (d) the time during which it can be processed is the duration of this particular contract + 7 years.
As for the “poor bankers”, very very few of them ever challenged my team’s findings and those that did lost their case in court.
Night all.
Trying to wipe out all of the viruses that cause the common cold might cause untold effects rather like when they tried to kill all the sparrows in China. Just saying it might.
It is still gone though....
Goodnight!
Consider, for example, what happened to the indigenous population of the Americas when they encountered our common viruses.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1296208610234634240?s=09
And 'might' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your second paragraph.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1296210834914508808
Or at the very least utterly amoral.
Dark times.
Just saying that the thought of a mobilisation to wipe out all viruses that can cause the common cold - which nobody has actually suggested - gives me the heeby-jeebies.
Germany’s parliament is bursting at the seams. It may get bigger
Mathematicians have been asked to help devise a better voting system, but MPs can’t agree on change" (£)
https://www.economist.com/europe/2020/08/15/germanys-parliament-is-bursting-at-the-seams-it-may-get-bigger
Genesis Chapter 5, Verse 5.
"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Must have followed a mediterranean diet.
The problem is, that I am not sure having a higher percentage but it being anti-Tory is enough alone, we need to start converting Tories
In Germany it could become the law that dog owners have to take them for a walk twice a day for at least an hour in total, amongst other things.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53839286
"Under the planned rules, dog owners:
will have to take their dogs for walks twice a day for a minimum of one hour in total
will not be allowed to keep their dogs chained for long periods of time
will not be allowed to leave dogs alone the whole day
Breeders will be restricted to looking after a maximum of three litters and puppies will have to spend a minimum of four hours a day in human company to ensure they get socialised."
It is a 2 stage process.