Isn't that what we effectively had earlier this week? Obviously the concern about trial by judge(s) is that it's seen as unfair on the defendant, but given the outcome of the Ceon Broughton case, arguably the concern should be in the other direction.
That was an appeal on the basis that the judge’s direction in law at the trial was wrong and therefore that misdirection invalidated the jury’s verdict. Very different from a trial where the judge makes both findings of fact and law.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
The productive healthy young if they're not front line don't need the vaccine that much.
The whole reason we don't want the productive healthy young to get the disease is so they don't pass it on to the old. Once the frontline and the old are vaccinated the young can rather get back to normal even before they are vaccinated.
My wife is a frontline health worker, working with the vulnerable, I'd expect her to be near the front of the queue for a vaccine. But I have absolutely no desire to get the vaccine myself before my grandparents do.
With a relatively new vaccine you'd want older people to benefit from not coming into contact with people who can spread it which means vaccinate everyone else first. Additionally, getting the economy back up to full speed is and should always be priority one which means getting young people back into offices is up there somewhere. Whatever outrage the Daily Mail come up with should just be ignored there's no economic or scientific case to prioritise older people over the economically productive.
Medical treatment should be given on the basis of medical need.
The required "medical treatment" may be different, depending on whether you are talking about the "medical need" of that person, the "medical need" of their local community or the "medical need" of the country as a whole.
Really? Is that how medical treatment is given now? You turn up at A&E and get treated in the basis of whether the country or your local area benefits from you being treated? News to me, if so.
Perhaps Dr Foxy if he is around could opine.
The existing healthcare system (NICE etc) considers more than the immediate benefit to the patient, alone.
That as I understand it is in order to determine whether a new drug should be made available at all.
When you see a doctor, he/she does not say “well you have X and this gel is what is needed to cure it but it’s of no value to the country for you to be treated so you’re not getting it” does he?
There is a problem here. NICE adjudicates on whether a drug is paid for by the NHS, not over whether it is in an individual patients options for treatment. Hence the obligation to mention such treatments, and this can become an issue for chemotherapy. I have a cousin with metastatic breast cancer who has self funded a non approved chemotherapy for this very reason.
The issue with the vaccine would be around supply. I would expect health and social care workers to get priority as essential to keep services going and also prevent cross infection, but also all those with high risk conditions.
A vaccine is the way to put this nightmare behind us, but vaccinating tens of millions is not an overnight task.
I thought we were fed up with experts? Now we seem to be getting rid of the twelve good men and true.
Another golden opportunity presented by the lockdown. But of course it's all about a virus.
I tend to the view that the more a politician talks about The People in the abstract, the more they tend to dislike or despise actual real-life people in the particular.
Not invariably true of course but as a general guide it has its merits.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
Does believing that a half-Australian/half-American racist, religious bigot & movie actor* is the ultimate authority on Scottish culture count?
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
I thought we were fed up with experts? Now we seem to be getting rid of the twelve good men and true.
Another golden opportunity presented by the lockdown. But of course it's all about a virus.
Good thing too, a system about as modern and effective in achieving justice in the 21st century as trying witches by ducking stool.
Cue apoplexy from the Did Magna Carta die in vain? school of thought; How very dare you impugn John Bull's age old birthright to a system of justice which awarded Jeffrey Archer half a million notes in damages for shagging a tart whom I knew perfectly well he shagged all along, even if I didn't (adopt tone of bleating self righteousness) hear all the evidence the jury did. Two points: the system sucks so badly we dropped it for civil cases except tart-shagging claims in 1933. Any champions of good old English justice wanna argue for its reinstatement? Secondly, the system actually assumes that jurors are completely imbecilic fuckwits, so if 9 weeks into a ten week trial a local paper hints at the possibility the Defendant might be a bit of a c--t we have to discharge the lot and start again because ooooh they might be prejudiced by the revelation and are too thick to be told to ignore it and crack on.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Bringing Galloway in may well push others out, but your bizarre pan Unionist alliance is a daydream.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
Discounting the absolute minnows but including TBP and Alliance4Unity, Galloway's new comedy vehicle, I make that six parties competing for the Unionist vote next May. If HYUFD wants the 'unifying' figure of Ruth to start leading a consolidated Unionist movement, he'd should tell her to get her arse into gear.
'New Unionist party wants to abolish the Scottish Parliament'
Fantastic, lots of new Unionist MSPs potentially there then on the top up list from Labour, the Tories and LDs, to TBP and even Galloway's new Alliance and the party to abolish the Scottish Parliament all are welcome as long as they are anti SNP.
Davidson is biding her time, she will however be interim leader of the Tories at Holyrood until polling day. She will strike when Sturgeon's guard is down then we just need to get the Unionist Alliance candidates sorted at constituency level
Absolutely BARKING
I would rather have Galloway as First Minister than Sturgeon
Throw the kitchen sink at keeping Corbyn out of Downing St but a Galloway appeaser? Who'd have thunk?
Sorry to wee on your frites, but Scotland has become electorally immunised against GG . On his last foray he garnered a massive 3.3% of the votes in 2011 on the Glasgow regional list, and after sulking in a car park all evening refused to turn up for the announcement of the result.
HYUFD shames the conservative party
I would rather Scotland won a fair referendum than Galloway
On the point of your wife feeling excluded - part of the problem is that there is no functioning legal definition of Scots nationality in the UK, i.e. in the semse of an existing register of Scots-born - including, crucially, (a) where people were born, (b) where they live now, and (c) whjether they are alive/qualified to vote (e.g. you could be a long-term convict in Beaumaris Gaol for all anyone knew, though I'm sure that is not the case!). Just think of the problems of checking for accuracy and reconciling it across different databases across the UK and overseas. And for fraud.
The French example is not a valid comparison as they - I am sure - have maintained their systems to take into account the possibility of some voters being in overseas departments.
I'm sure that was one reason why the local government electoral roll - esentially a residence qualificatio - was used in 2014.
There is also the justice implicit in the basic fact that Scots expats don't have nearly so much of an interest in the result as those living there in Scotland. They have not greatly more interest than the other residents in rUK - many of whom also have relatives in Scotland. Yet nobody (okay, not too many of us on P{B) seriously argues that English voters should have a vote in indyref 2 (it would, of course, be different for dissolution of the UK).
Finally, I'm very disturbed by any attempt to define Scxots nationality on a blood genetic basis - as opposed to a civic one. The issues are obvious - and on that logic, should Mr Leonard be deprived of a vote in the referendum just because he is fortunate enouhg to have been born in Yorkshire?
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
But why stop at 16 year old? There are quite a few 12 year olds who have more knowledge and understanding of politics than many well into adult life! William Hague was a very good example.
It is clear what the government’s overriding priority is - to make its mates richer by throwing public money at them. Blessed are those who are friends of Johnson, Gove and Cummings, for they will be levelled up as all around are scorned.
Without knowing the nature of the association, is it not likely that Gove and Cummings would want to use a long term 'associate' for a job like this? If it's a brother in law, yes that's bad. If it's someone they've worked with before and know their work, that's different.
I thought we were fed up with experts? Now we seem to be getting rid of the twelve good men and true.
Another golden opportunity presented by the lockdown. But of course it's all about a virus.
Good thing too, a system about as modern and effective in achieving justice in the 21st century as trying witches by ducking stool.
Cue apoplexy from the Did Magna Carta die in vain? school of thought; How very dare you impugn John Bull's age old birthright to a system of justice which awarded Jeffrey Archer half a million notes in damages for shagging a tart whom I knew perfectly well he shagged all along, even if I didn't (adopt tone of bleating self righteousness) hear all the evidence the jury did. Two points: the system sucks so badly we dropped it for civil cases except tart-shagging claims in 1933. Any champions of good old English justice wanna argue for its reinstatement? Secondly, the system actually assumes that jurors are completely imbecilic fuckwits, so if 9 weeks into a ten week trial a local paper hints at the possibility the Defendant might be a bit of a c--t we have to discharge the lot and start again because ooooh they might be prejudiced by the revelation and are too thick to be told to ignore it and crack on.
There is no right to a jury trial now in defamation cases. Defamation Act 2013.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
It’s fascinating that you think voting for Hague over Blair is something to boast about.
If Williamson spent his days on PB he might do less damage. Whether that would set off the drop in the quality of conversation on here is more difficult to judge.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
It’s fascinating that you think voting for Hague over Blair is something to boast about.
It is when others did not vote for him and still claim to be Tories rather than swimg voters
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
Does believing that a half-Australian/half-American racist, religious bigot & movie actor* is the ultimate authority on Scottish culture count?
Asking for a friend etc....
*Well, the script writer....
So you haven't had recent experience of the National 5 history curriculum then?
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
Does believing that a half-Australian/half-American racist, religious bigot & movie actor* is the ultimate authority on Scottish culture count?
Asking for a friend etc....
*Well, the script writer....
So you haven't had recent experience of the National 5 history curriculum then?
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
I would prefer Galloway to Johnson as PM. I actually think he'd be pretty good at it.
And unlike Johnson, Galloway is genuinely pro-Brexit!
Setting up excuses already? 'Brexit wouldn't have been such a disaster if Boris hadn't been so lukewarm about it'
No, just acknowledging that I think there are doubts about what Boris actually thinks about Brexit. Now he's on that horse, however, he'll have to ride it to the finish.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
I never claimed to be a Tory, I claimed to be a Tory.
You though are more of a muppet than Kermit the Frog.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
But why stop at 16 year old? There are quite a few 12 year olds who have more knowledge and understanding of politics than many well into adult life! William Hague was a very good example.
I know, wherever you draw the line has a random element to it.
I'd say this Government is bad with this, but it's hardly new.
There are various versions of the old "three envelopes" joke. But a pretty common one is that the new minister goes into his office to find three sealed envelopes left by his predecessor and to be opened in case of a first, second and third crisis. First envelope contains the instruction, "Blame your predecessor". Second one says, "Blame your officials". Third one says "Go to the stationery cupboard and get three envelopes".
I thought we were fed up with experts? Now we seem to be getting rid of the twelve good men and true.
Another golden opportunity presented by the lockdown. But of course it's all about a virus.
Good thing too, a system about as modern and effective in achieving justice in the 21st century as trying witches by ducking stool.
Cue apoplexy from the Did Magna Carta die in vain? school of thought; How very dare you impugn John Bull's age old birthright to a system of justice which awarded Jeffrey Archer half a million notes in damages for shagging a tart whom I knew perfectly well he shagged all along, even if I didn't (adopt tone of bleating self righteousness) hear all the evidence the jury did. Two points: the system sucks so badly we dropped it for civil cases except tart-shagging claims in 1933. Any champions of good old English justice wanna argue for its reinstatement? Secondly, the system actually assumes that jurors are completely imbecilic fuckwits, so if 9 weeks into a ten week trial a local paper hints at the possibility the Defendant might be a bit of a c--t we have to discharge the lot and start again because ooooh they might be prejudiced by the revelation and are too thick to be told to ignore it and crack on.
There is no right to a jury trial now in defamation cases. Defamation Act 2013.
Yes. The Act doesn't abolish jury trials altogether, just makes it the presumption that there won't be one - a further recognition that it's very hard to see what the point of a jury actually is.
Agree. And I think it's possible that the long suffering public would give some credit and a bit of slack to a government which looked as if it had a genuine 'The world and we are imperfect but The Buck Stops Here approach'. At least it would make a change.
At the same time it might try making announcements in parliament and stop leaking by unattributable briefings. In a crisis it makes things much worse.
Isn't that what we effectively had earlier this week? Obviously the concern about trial by judge(s) is that it's seen as unfair on the defendant, but given the outcome of the Ceon Broughton case, arguably the concern should be in the other direction.
That was an appeal on the basis that the judge’s direction in law at the trial was wrong and therefore that misdirection invalidated the jury’s verdict. Very different from a trial where the judge makes both findings of fact and law.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
The productive healthy young if they're not front line don't need the vaccine that much.
The whole reason we don't want the productive healthy young to get the disease is so they don't pass it on to the old. Once the frontline and the old are vaccinated the young can rather get back to normal even before they are vaccinated.
My wife is a frontline health worker, working with the vulnerable, I'd expect her to be near the front of the queue for a vaccine. But I have absolutely no desire to get the vaccine myself before my grandparents do.
With a relatively new vaccine you'd want older people to benefit from not coming into contact with people who can spread it which means vaccinate everyone else first. Additionally, getting the economy back up to full speed is and should always be priority one which means getting young people back into offices is up there somewhere. Whatever outrage the Daily Mail come up with should just be ignored there's no economic or scientific case to prioritise older people over the economically productive.
Medical treatment should be given on the basis of medical need.
The required "medical treatment" may be different, depending on whether you are talking about the "medical need" of that person, the "medical need" of their local community or the "medical need" of the country as a whole.
Really? Is that how medical treatment is given now? You turn up at A&E and get treated in the basis of whether the country or your local area benefits from you being treated? News to me, if so.
Perhaps Dr Foxy if he is around could opine.
The existing healthcare system (NICE etc) considers more than the immediate benefit to the patient, alone.
That as I understand it is in order to determine whether a new drug should be made available at all.
When you see a doctor, he/she does not say “well you have X and this gel is what is needed to cure it but it’s of no value to the country for you to be treated so you’re not getting it” does he?
There is a problem here. NICE adjudicates on whether a drug is paid for by the NHS, not over whether it is in an individual patients options for treatment. Hence the obligation to mention such treatments, and this can become an issue for chemotherapy. I have a cousin with metastatic breast cancer who has self funded a non approved chemotherapy for this very reason.
The issue with the vaccine would be around supply. I would expect health and social care workers to get priority as essential to keep services going and also prevent cross infection, but also all those with high risk conditions.
A vaccine is the way to put this nightmare behind us, but vaccinating tens of millions is not an overnight task.
I thought we were fed up with experts? Now we seem to be getting rid of the twelve good men and true.
Another golden opportunity presented by the lockdown. But of course it's all about a virus.
Good thing too, a system about as modern and effective in achieving justice in the 21st century as trying witches by ducking stool.
Cue apoplexy from the Did Magna Carta die in vain? school of thought; How very dare you impugn John Bull's age old birthright to a system of justice which awarded Jeffrey Archer half a million notes in damages for shagging a tart whom I knew perfectly well he shagged all along, even if I didn't (adopt tone of bleating self righteousness) hear all the evidence the jury did. Two points: the system sucks so badly we dropped it for civil cases except tart-shagging claims in 1933. Any champions of good old English justice wanna argue for its reinstatement? Secondly, the system actually assumes that jurors are completely imbecilic fuckwits, so if 9 weeks into a ten week trial a local paper hints at the possibility the Defendant might be a bit of a c--t we have to discharge the lot and start again because ooooh they might be prejudiced by the revelation and are too thick to be told to ignore it and crack on.
Jeffrey Archer’s original libel award was not a criminal trial. Which I’m sure you knew.
The reason for discharging a jury in certain circumstances is in order that the process is seen as being fair, the “Caesar’s wife above suspicion” test. I expect you know that already as well.
But I enjoyed your rant and would love to hear more about tart-shagging claims in 1933.
"Johnson vowed to strengthen parliament. Yet he and Cummings are silencing it Martin Kettle We are witnessing nothing less than an attempt to overturn Britain’s established system of representative democracy"
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
HYUFD this is a bit like supporting a football team.
let me ask you (and parties do change their policies) if the Tories started promoting Socialist policies and Labour started taking on Tory policies would you still support the Tories?
It is clear what the government’s overriding priority is - to make its mates richer by throwing public money at them. Blessed are those who are friends of Johnson, Gove and Cummings, for they will be levelled up as all around are scorned.
Without knowing the nature of the association, is it not likely that Gove and Cummings would want to use a long term 'associate' for a job like this? If it's a brother in law, yes that's bad. If it's someone they've worked with before and know their work, that's different.
That isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that the contracts are awarded without an open, transparent and fair tender process open to all.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
HYUFD this is a bit like supporting a football team.
let me ask you (and parties do change their policies) if the Tories started promoting Socialist policies and Labour started taking on Tory policies would you still support the Tories?
Precisely.
When the Tories under May stopped representing what I believe in I quit the party and didn't vote for them in the Euro elections. When they started representing me again I started voting for them again.
I vote for what I believe in, not for a party come what may.
It is clear what the government’s overriding priority is - to make its mates richer by throwing public money at them. Blessed are those who are friends of Johnson, Gove and Cummings, for they will be levelled up as all around are scorned.
Without knowing the nature of the association, is it not likely that Gove and Cummings would want to use a long term 'associate' for a job like this? If it's a brother in law, yes that's bad. If it's someone they've worked with before and know their work, that's different.
That isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that the contracts are awarded without an open, transparent and fair tender process open to all.
Because we're in a pandemic. Tendering processes are irrelevant now.
Isn't that what we effectively had earlier this week? Obviously the concern about trial by judge(s) is that it's seen as unfair on the defendant, but given the outcome of the Ceon Broughton case, arguably the concern should be in the other direction.
That was an appeal on the basis that the judge’s direction in law at the trial was wrong and therefore that misdirection invalidated the jury’s verdict. Very different from a trial where the judge makes both findings of fact and law.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
The productive healthy young if they're not front line don't need the vaccine that much.
The whole reason we don't want the productive healthy young to get the disease is so they don't pass it on to the old. Once the frontline and the old are vaccinated the young can rather get back to normal even before they are vaccinated.
My wife is a frontline health worker, working with the vulnerable, I'd expect her to be near the front of the queue for a vaccine. But I have absolutely no desire to get the vaccine myself before my grandparents do.
With a relatively new vaccine you'd want older people to benefit from not coming into contact with people who can spread it which means vaccinate everyone else first. Additionally, getting the economy back up to full speed is and should always be priority one which means getting young people back into offices is up there somewhere. Whatever outrage the Daily Mail come up with should just be ignored there's no economic or scientific case to prioritise older people over the economically productive.
Medical treatment should be given on the basis of medical need.
The required "medical treatment" may be different, depending on whether you are talking about the "medical need" of that person, the "medical need" of their local community or the "medical need" of the country as a whole.
Really? Is that how medical treatment is given now? You turn up at A&E and get treated in the basis of whether the country or your local area benefits from you being treated? News to me, if so.
Perhaps Dr Foxy if he is around could opine.
Why do you restrict this to just A&E?
A different scenario is where the best "medical treatment" is available in hospital, but because the illness is long term degenerative that patient would need to be in hospital for over 10 years. In most countries ths person would be in a nursing home, where the treatment is good but not as good as in a hospital.
When it comes to vaccines your medical need for the vaccine is often zero, and you just get treatment if you get ill, but it is still better for the country as a whole that you get vaccinated.
I thought we were fed up with experts? Now we seem to be getting rid of the twelve good men and true.
Another golden opportunity presented by the lockdown. But of course it's all about a virus.
Good thing too, a system about as modern and effective in achieving justice in the 21st century as trying witches by ducking stool.
Cue apoplexy from the Did Magna Carta die in vain? school of thought; How very dare you impugn John Bull's age old birthright to a system of justice which awarded Jeffrey Archer half a million notes in damages for shagging a tart whom I knew perfectly well he shagged all along, even if I didn't (adopt tone of bleating self righteousness) hear all the evidence the jury did. Two points: the system sucks so badly we dropped it for civil cases except tart-shagging claims in 1933. Any champions of good old English justice wanna argue for its reinstatement? Secondly, the system actually assumes that jurors are completely imbecilic fuckwits, so if 9 weeks into a ten week trial a local paper hints at the possibility the Defendant might be a bit of a c--t we have to discharge the lot and start again because ooooh they might be prejudiced by the revelation and are too thick to be told to ignore it and crack on.
There is no right to a jury trial now in defamation cases. Defamation Act 2013.
Not really equivalent as a defamation case isn't a criminal matter where the defendant could be deprived of their liberty.
It's a civil matter and, although juries in common law civil cases were common until the 1850s by 1933 they were only retained for a small range of cases including defamation and breach of promise to marry (!).
In my view it was quite right to get rid of it for defamation. Since there's no deprivation of liberty point involved, it's entirely unclear why it was covered whereas, say, personal injury wasn't. But I'd retain for (serious) criminal matters as deprivation of liberty involved and I don't think a single person deciding on that is appropriate.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
HYUFD works for CCHQ how many times does this need to be covered
Even I am not as blinkered as him and I am Corbyn's number one fan
He can't work for CCHQ, he undermines the Tories far too much.
He's a fanboi that's all.
Nah he works for CCHQ
More likely to work for Labour HQ.
Why would CCHQ pay someone to undermine the Tories?
He doesn't undermine the Tories, he bats for them whatever the weather.
That's like saying that Alan B'Stard batted for the Tories.
He's a fanboi. Batting whatever the weather is, is what crazy fanbois do. He's basically a nutter throwing his underwear at the stage.
To anyone sane who reads those posts we're more likely to feel pity or horror than be won around by such nonsense. If you think the Tories are paying someone to write that anyone who voted for Blair can't be considered a Tory . . . or paying someone to write that the army will be sent in to crush the Scots like in Catalonia . . . or any other nonsense then I think you underestimate how competent CCHQ actually is.
@Cyclefree - sorry, I missed your earlier response. So effectively it was one lot of judges overruling another judge. In that case a retrial would have made sense with the new direction given to the new jury.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
I never claimed to be a Tory, I claimed to be a Tory.
You though are more of a muppet than Kermit the Frog.
"I never claimed to be a Tory, I claimed to be a Tory." Sorry you've lost me.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
I never claimed to be a Tory, I claimed to be a Tory.
You though are more of a muppet than Kermit the Frog.
"I never claimed to be a Tory, I claimed to be a Tory." Sorry you've lost me.
Typo sorry lost the meaning; he said I was a not a "loyal Tory". The reply was meant to be "I never claimed to be a loyal Tory, I claimed to be a Tory."
I see no reason to be loyal to a party. The party has to win my vote not the other way around. If the party isn't good enough, I will vote accordingly.
To say that is not comparing like with like is stating the obvious, even for me. Presumably the market think that MS can monetise Tik Tok and improve their future profitability sufficiently to make $50bn a good deal?
Any financial analyst who has problems with this really needs to find another career.
HYUFD works for CCHQ how many times does this need to be covered
Even I am not as blinkered as him and I am Corbyn's number one fan
He can't work for CCHQ, he undermines the Tories far too much.
He's a fanboi that's all.
Nah he works for CCHQ
More likely to work for Labour HQ.
Why would CCHQ pay someone to undermine the Tories?
He doesn't undermine the Tories, he bats for them whatever the weather.
That's like saying that Alan B'Stard batted for the Tories.
He's a fanboi. Batting whatever the weather is, is what crazy fanbois do. He's basically a nutter throwing his underwear at the stage.
To anyone sane who reads those posts we're more likely to feel pity or horror than be won around by such nonsense. If you think the Tories are paying someone to write that anyone who voted for Blair can't be considered a Tory . . . or paying someone to write that the army will be sent in to crush the Scots like in Catalonia . . . or any other nonsense then I think you underestimate how competent CCHQ actually is.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
HYUFD this is a bit like supporting a football team.
let me ask you (and parties do change their policies) if the Tories started promoting Socialist policies and Labour started taking on Tory policies would you still support the Tories?
That would never be the case as they would both lose all their voters
HYUFD works for CCHQ how many times does this need to be covered
Even I am not as blinkered as him and I am Corbyn's number one fan
He can't work for CCHQ, he undermines the Tories far too much.
He's a fanboi that's all.
Nah he works for CCHQ
More likely to work for Labour HQ.
Why would CCHQ pay someone to undermine the Tories?
He doesn't undermine the Tories, he bats for them whatever the weather.
That's like saying that Alan B'Stard batted for the Tories.
He's a fanboi. Batting whatever the weather is, is what crazy fanbois do. He's basically a nutter throwing his underwear at the stage.
To anyone sane who reads those posts we're more likely to feel pity or horror than be won around by such nonsense. If you think the Tories are paying someone to write that anyone who voted for Blair can't be considered a Tory . . . or paying someone to write that the army will be sent in to crush the Scots like in Catalonia . . . or any other nonsense then I think you underestimate how competent CCHQ actually is.
He has a point that if he believes a solution to stop Scottish independence is found through Galloway and that it’s more reversible than actual independence and less damaging then why is that so bad? If achieved through the ballot box then that’s democracy.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
@Cyclefree - sorry, I missed your earlier response. So effectively it was one lot of judges overruling another judge. In that case a retrial would have made sense with the new direction given to the new jury.
Sometimes that does indeed happen.
I assume that the reason that couldn’t happen here is because, given that the evidence did not, as a matter of law, reach the level needed ie the “expert evidence was not capable of establishing causation to the criminal standard.” what could he be charged for.
The reason for overturning the verdict was that the only evidence available to the jury was expert evidence which did not meet the standard. In its absence, there was nothing for the jury to consider.
If it wasn't manslaughter, it couldn’t be murder. What alternative charge was there for which there was evidence capable of reaching the criminal standard required which the jury could consider.
This was quite an unusual case more akin to those cases where the judge throws out the case before it ever goes to the jury because the prosecution has failed to establish either an offence in law or prima facie the existence of evidence on which a jury could convict.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
If HYUFD is the best the Tories have to offer, I am not surprised Williamson is still in a job
HYUFD represents HYUFD not the Tories.
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
Excuse me, both you and BigG voted for Blair and New Labour in 2001 when I voted for and campaigned for Hague and the Tories.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Proving my point, blue Corbynite. Only want true believers to your hardcore cult only - anyone who's even considered voting for another party - or did so 19 years ago is excommunicated for life.
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
Churchill was a liberal as much as a Tory and I have never claimed otherwise.
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
HYUFD this is a bit like supporting a football team.
let me ask you (and parties do change their policies) if the Tories started promoting Socialist policies and Labour started taking on Tory policies would you still support the Tories?
That would never be the case as they would both lose all their voters
Well that’s not true. The Corbynistas may start voting for the Tories then.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
Does believing that a half-Australian/half-American racist, religious bigot & movie actor* is the ultimate authority on Scottish culture count?
Asking for a friend etc....
*Well, the script writer....
Och aye! I want to live. I want a home and children… and peace.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
Surely they will not be European by that time David, they will all be Scottish or British.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
@Cyclefree - sorry, I missed your earlier response. So effectively it was one lot of judges overruling another judge. In that case a retrial would have made sense with the new direction given to the new jury.
Sometimes that does indeed happen.
I assume that the reason that couldn’t happen here is because, given that the evidence did not, as a matter of law, reach the level needed ie the “expert evidence was not capable of establishing causation to the criminal standard.” what could he be charged for.
The reason for overturning the verdict was that the only evidence available to the jury was expert evidence which did not meet the standard. In its absence, there was nothing for the jury to consider.
If it wasn't manslaughter, it couldn’t be murder. What alternative charge was there for which there was evidence capable of reaching the criminal standard required which the jury could consider.
This was quite an unusual case more akin to those cases where the judge throws out the case before it ever goes to the jury because the prosecution has failed to establish either an offence in law or prima facie the existence of evidence on which a jury could convict.
BiB - In my opinion, that should be up to the jury to decide. They were perfectly able to acquit if they thought it wasn't good enough. I'm very much against a double-lock system that needs judges and juries to convict.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
The productive healthy young if they're not front line don't need the vaccine that much.
The whole reason we don't want the productive healthy young to get the disease is so they don't pass it on to the old. Once the frontline and the old are vaccinated the young can rather get back to normal even before they are vaccinated.
My wife is a frontline health worker, working with the vulnerable, I'd expect her to be near the front of the queue for a vaccine. But I have absolutely no desire to get the vaccine myself before my grandparents do.
With a relatively new vaccine you'd want older people to benefit from not coming into contact with people who can spread it which means vaccinate everyone else first. Additionally, getting the economy back up to full speed is and should always be priority one which means getting young people back into offices is up there somewhere. Whatever outrage the Daily Mail come up with should just be ignored there's no economic or scientific case to prioritise older people over the economically productive.
Medical treatment should be given on the basis of medical need.
And the medical need is to get the economy back up and running, we have doubled the rate of depression, we have got cancer patients dying undiagnosed, we have people dying in their homes of strokes and heart attacks because they aren't getting tested for cholesterol.
Your simplistic view of "medical need" is the kind of rubbish I'd expect from the Mail, it's rather disappointing.
I do wonder about the US comparisons though. Over there 50%+ of older people are Republicans. They (on average) don't think the virus is such a big deal.
Here in the UK at least, older people seem pretty scared, so perhaps they will continue to see people less and so protect themselves.
I’d add that thus far our infection rates have remained much lower than in the US. With sensible measures, they should stay so. Until there’s a vaccine, we’re not returning to normal, but if we’re sensible, life should be liveable.
According to the most recent open source information I can find (here: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/07/oxford-vaccine-enters-final-phase-of-covid-19-trials-in-brazil-cvd/ ), despite the delays caused by not having enough infections in those being tested (which is in all other respects wonderful news), the rollout to Brazil now implies that they'll have enough data on the OxChAd1 vaccine "by November." With, if positive, regulatory approval coming rapidly afterwards and rollout of mass vaccination (thanks to them beginning mass production nearly two months ago on the assumption of success) shortly after that.
IF successful. Still a big assumption, even if all signs have been pretty positive so far - but if this timeline is followed, and the trials are successful, we should have the data in 11-15 weeks from now, with the rest coming within weeks after that.
Of course, production and administration of enough vaccine to vaccinate everyone in the UK will take significant time, but simply knowing that it's there, it's coming, and there's a fixed timetable for things to get resolved would be marvellous for a lot of people.
Who is going to be willingly first in the queue? There are a lot of people who feel it’s been rushed or they are going to be injected with a microchip. It’s going to take some selling
The elderly and vulnerable.
As the risks from Covid are minuscule for fit and healthy under 50s with no comorbidities, these groups will be at the back the queue whether they like it or not.
For that reason, I think the policy risk is quite the other way: prepare for thousands of people who have been drummed into irrational fear of the virus now baffled why, suddenly, the government doesn't think them much of a risk at all...
The most effective use of the vaccine will be to innoculate those who come in to contact with the most people, regardless of their risk status.
Yes, frontline workers etc.
Other than that, the government will priorities the elderly, obese and vulnerable – and will have to explain to millions of fearful people that, in fact, they aren't really at much risk.
Front line workers, retail workers, the productive middle aged and the productive young. If we waste limited vaccine capacity on old people we will hold back the economy. Honestly it's time to tell the Daily Mail to fuck off.
@Cyclefree - sorry, I missed your earlier response. So effectively it was one lot of judges overruling another judge. In that case a retrial would have made sense with the new direction given to the new jury.
Sometimes that does indeed happen.
I assume that the reason that couldn’t happen here is because, given that the evidence did not, as a matter of law, reach the level needed ie the “expert evidence was not capable of establishing causation to the criminal standard.” what could he be charged for.
The reason for overturning the verdict was that the only evidence available to the jury was expert evidence which did not meet the standard. In its absence, there was nothing for the jury to consider.
If it wasn't manslaughter, it couldn’t be murder. What alternative charge was there for which there was evidence capable of reaching the criminal standard required which the jury could consider.
This was quite an unusual case more akin to those cases where the judge throws out the case before it ever goes to the jury because the prosecution has failed to establish either an offence in law or prima facie the existence of evidence on which a jury could convict.
Yes. an application was made at the trial to throw it out on those grounds at the close of the prosecution case. The CCA effectively said it should have been granted by the judge. IIRC the expert evidence was that there was a 90% chance of a causal link between the actions (or inactions) of the defendant and the death of the victim. Enough for civil liability of course, but not close for a criminal conviction if there is no other evidence upon which a jury can make a proper inference to close the gap.
Criminal cases hate hard statistical numbers/probabilities unless they are in the millions/billions to one chance range- like DNA matches. Because anything much less than 100% on the prosecution side and you are scuppered.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
Could the UK government refuse to delegate power to organise a referendum to Holyrood but instead organise one itself.
They could try but then they'd be in the boycottable and quasi illegitimate position position that Unionists claim for any potential wildcat referendum held by the SNP government. They'd also need the cooperation of all 32 council authorities.
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
But why stop at 16 year old? There are quite a few 12 year olds who have more knowledge and understanding of politics than many well into adult life! William Hague was a very good example.
Thought he was too busy drinking 12 pints a day to be in politics at that age
Of course, there may be a logical reason for this. The group Covid is now running through might disproportionately be those with the most to fear from authority. If for example it is now affecting those working in the black economy, those working when/where they shouldn't, those not having settled immigration status, those who've been meeting with those they shouldn't be meeting with....then they aren't going to want to be part of the tracing process.
Just a theory, but it would also be an explanation.
I might be nuts but I cant understand the price of Star Terms in the 345 York (25/1) If you look at her form at the start of last year itis miles better than any of these. She was in races with far better horses than these and ran really well. Some of the horses she beat are now rated 110+. Just relying on Richard Hannon having her ready
Attended an Edinburgh Fringe show Appeared in an Edinburgh Fringe show Bought one of the Scottish piper dolls on the Royal Mile Thinking that Billy O'Connolly chap is BLOODY funny Being able to pronounce Kirkcaldy on the third attempt Loving Scotch Whiskey
You forgot being 16 without a decent education.
I seem to recall at some point in the past before you'd been driven mad by the prospect of Indy Ref II that you'd come round to the idea of 16 & 17 years olds having a vote. Sad.
I don't feel strongly about it one way or the other to be honest. My daughter was 16 at the time and campaigned very actively for Better Together along with some of her school mates. She was one of our best canvassers. Some of her class mates took the other side and they were all engaged. It seemed to me that they had a right to be heard. On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that. I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
EU nationals resident in Scotland can still vote in Scottish elections, as legislated on by Holyrood.
Blimey, that really needs to be changed. There are over 200k EU citizens in Scotland but if they are not citizens of the UK, let alone Scotland, how on earth can they be allowed to vote on our future?
Comments
The issue with the vaccine would be around supply. I would expect health and social care workers to get priority as essential to keep services going and also prevent cross infection, but also all those with high risk conditions.
A vaccine is the way to put this nightmare behind us, but vaccinating tens of millions is not an overnight task.
Not invariably true of course but as a general guide it has its merits.
Asking for a friend etc....
*Well, the script writer....
Other Tories here like Big_G, myself and many more are embarrassed by his nonsense. HYUFD is a Blue Corbynite.
On the other hand there are a lot of kids of that age who have zero interest in politics and no understanding of the issues but that is the case at any age. It just seems a bit ironic to throw accusations of trying to rig the ballot when the SNP did exactly that.
I had a lot more of an issue with EU residents being allowed to vote but my understanding is that that will not be repeated.
Cue apoplexy from the Did Magna Carta die in vain? school of thought; How very dare you impugn John Bull's age old birthright to a system of justice which awarded Jeffrey Archer half a million notes in damages for shagging a tart whom I knew perfectly well he shagged all along, even if I didn't (adopt tone of bleating self righteousness) hear all the evidence the jury did. Two points: the system sucks so badly we dropped it for civil cases except tart-shagging claims in 1933. Any champions of good old English justice wanna argue for its reinstatement? Secondly, the system actually assumes that jurors are completely imbecilic fuckwits, so if 9 weeks into a ten week trial a local paper hints at the possibility the Defendant might be a bit of a c--t we have to discharge the lot and start again because ooooh they might be prejudiced by the revelation and are too thick to be told to ignore it and crack on.
In any case even Churchill made a pact with Stalin to beat Hitler, if bringing Galloway supporters into the Unionist tent helps beat the SNP so be it, senior Tories are now thinking the unthinkable for Holyrood 2021 I can assure you, Gove tweeted Galloway for a reason
Mental. Whisper this quietly but Churchill crossed the floor. Twice. He didn't just vote the same way all his life. He also stood up for democracy.
You sir are nothing like Churchill.
The French example is not a valid comparison as they - I am sure - have maintained their systems to take into account the possibility of some voters being in overseas departments.
I'm sure that was one reason why the local government electoral roll - esentially a residence qualificatio - was used in 2014.
There is also the justice implicit in the basic fact that Scots expats don't have nearly so much of an interest in the result as those living there in Scotland. They have not greatly more interest than the other residents in rUK - many of whom also have relatives in Scotland. Yet nobody (okay, not too many of us on P{B) seriously argues that English voters should have a vote in indyref 2 (it would, of course, be different for dissolution of the UK).
Finally, I'm very disturbed by any attempt to define Scxots nationality on a blood genetic basis - as opposed to a civic one. The issues are obvious - and on that logic, should Mr Leonard be deprived of a vote in the referendum just because he is fortunate enouhg to have been born in Yorkshire?
'Brexit wouldn't have been such a disaster if Boris hadn't been so lukewarm about it'
Cameron made winning look hard, and governing look easy.
BoZo did the opposite.
I know which I prefer
https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1296427862531211267
All voters are welcome but you cannot claim to be a loyal Tory if you voted Labour at a general election, even Churchill never supported Labour
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/1524112/coronavirus-scotlands-route-out-of-lockdown-stalled-for-another-three-weeks-as-significant-perthshire-cluster-grows/
You though are more of a muppet than Kermit the Frog.
Headline - 5
7 days - 5
Yesterday - 0
There are various versions of the old "three envelopes" joke. But a pretty common one is that the new minister goes into his office to find three sealed envelopes left by his predecessor and to be opened in case of a first, second and third crisis. First envelope contains the instruction, "Blame your predecessor". Second one says, "Blame your officials". Third one says "Go to the stationery cupboard and get three envelopes".
At the same time it might try making announcements in parliament and stop leaking by unattributable briefings. In a crisis it makes things much worse.
The reason for discharging a jury in certain circumstances is in order that the process is seen as being fair, the “Caesar’s wife above suspicion” test. I expect you know that already as well.
But I enjoyed your rant and would love to hear more about tart-shagging claims in 1933.
Martin Kettle
We are witnessing nothing less than an attempt to overturn Britain’s established system of representative democracy"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/19/johnson-parliament-cummings-britain-democracy
let me ask you (and parties do change their policies) if the Tories started promoting Socialist policies and Labour started taking on Tory policies would you still support the Tories?
When the Tories under May stopped representing what I believe in I quit the party and didn't vote for them in the Euro elections. When they started representing me again I started voting for them again.
I vote for what I believe in, not for a party come what may.
Even I am not as blinkered as him and I am Corbyn's number one fan
He's a fanboi that's all.
Why would CCHQ pay someone to undermine the Tories?
A different scenario is where the best "medical treatment" is available in hospital, but because the illness is long term degenerative that patient would need to be in hospital for over 10 years. In most countries ths person would be in a nursing home, where the treatment is good but not as good as in a hospital.
When it comes to vaccines your medical need for the vaccine is often zero, and you just get treatment if you get ill, but it is still better for the country as a whole that you get vaccinated.
It's a civil matter and, although juries in common law civil cases were common until the 1850s by 1933 they were only retained for a small range of cases including defamation and breach of promise to marry (!).
In my view it was quite right to get rid of it for defamation. Since there's no deprivation of liberty point involved, it's entirely unclear why it was covered whereas, say, personal injury wasn't. But I'd retain for (serious) criminal matters as deprivation of liberty involved and I don't think a single person deciding on that is appropriate.
He's a fanboi. Batting whatever the weather is, is what crazy fanbois do. He's basically a nutter throwing his underwear at the stage.
To anyone sane who reads those posts we're more likely to feel pity or horror than be won around by such nonsense. If you think the Tories are paying someone to write that anyone who voted for Blair can't be considered a Tory . . . or paying someone to write that the army will be sent in to crush the Scots like in Catalonia . . . or any other nonsense then I think you underestimate how competent CCHQ actually is.
Sorry you've lost me.
I see no reason to be loyal to a party. The party has to win my vote not the other way around. If the party isn't good enough, I will vote accordingly.
Any financial analyst who has problems with this really needs to find another career.
I assume that the reason that couldn’t happen here is because, given that the evidence did not, as a matter of law, reach the level needed ie the “expert evidence was not capable of establishing causation to the criminal standard.” what could he be charged for.
The reason for overturning the verdict was that the only evidence available to the jury was expert evidence which did not meet the standard. In its absence, there was nothing for the jury to consider.
If it wasn't manslaughter, it couldn’t be murder. What alternative charge was there for which there was evidence capable of reaching the criminal standard required which the jury could consider.
This was quite an unusual case more akin to those cases where the judge throws out the case before it ever goes to the jury because the prosecution has failed to establish either an offence in law or prima facie the existence of evidence on which a jury could convict.
https://twitter.com/MhairiHunter/status/1296209195319144448?s=20
https://twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1296444539826315266
Sorry Priti
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1296446306043465731
I am totally mystified as to why someone in Essex gets so worked up over the future of Scotland.
Your simplistic view of "medical need" is the kind of rubbish I'd expect from the Mail, it's rather disappointing.
Criminal cases hate hard statistical numbers/probabilities unless they are in the millions/billions to one chance range- like DNA matches. Because anything much less than 100% on the prosecution side and you are scuppered.
NEW THREAD
Just a theory, but it would also be an explanation.
DYOR
Talk about rigging....