Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Interesting to note though Starmer ruled out No Deal on Marr this morning, so his Brexit position is now that of May's last year ie a post Brexit trade deal with the EU must be done while Boris' Brexit position has moved closer to that of Farage ie ready to go to No Deal if necessary
I'm not quite Starmer just expects a deal which is a problem as Boris won the last election on the basis of his agreement (which he is now backing away from) and his oven ready deal.
All Starmer is saying to Boris is give us the deal you promised
Boris also promised in the Tory manifesto to do a trade deal that regained control over UK fishing waters and ended EU sovereignty over UK law and if not to end the implementation period regardless, without the EU conceding on that there will therefore be no trade deal
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the last whisper that we might to be about to concede at least something on fishing. I would though, expect to see the next agreement with the EU signed in Johnson's blood, and with that blood drawn from him publicly.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Interesting to note though Starmer ruled out No Deal on Marr this morning, so his Brexit position is now that of May's last year ie a post Brexit trade deal with the EU must be done while Boris' Brexit position has moved closer to that of Farage ie ready to go to No Deal if necessary
Well obviously. Nobody sane wants no deal.
I don't want no deal but I prefer it over a bad deal and if no deal is yet available then I see getting no deal potentially as a mere stepping stone until we get a good deal.
Can you genuinely point to any evidence the Tories will make a success of it when you yourself admit Johnson is doing a terrible job?
G says, "I'm done with Boris J." He treats me like a ragdoll" He watches the television Says, "I don't owe him nothing, but if he comes back again Tell him to wait right here for me or, Try again tomorrow I'm gonna quit tomorrow I'm gonna quit tomorrow"
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Interesting to note though Starmer ruled out No Deal on Marr this morning, so his Brexit position is now that of May's last year ie a post Brexit trade deal with the EU must be done while Boris' Brexit position has moved closer to that of Farage ie ready to go to No Deal if necessary
Well obviously. Nobody sane wants no deal.
I don't want no deal but I prefer it over a bad deal and if no deal is yet available then I see getting no deal potentially as a mere stepping stone until we get a good deal.
Good deal > no deal > bad deal.
Philip it is very sad to see you still convinced this is the case after so much evidence this is not the reality.
No Deal is not a successful outcome and the EU knows it. If we No Deal they will sit and wait for us to come back and accept their demands.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Actually I voted remain
And there are very many who want to see brexit fail and are encouraging that failure so we can rejoin
Who here wants to rejoin the EU? Even in the country it has virtually no support.
I don't want Brexit to fail but I can't see how it is going to succeed. Can you genuinely point to any evidence the Tories will make a success of it when you yourself admit Johnson is doing a terrible job?
Scott is the leading proponent for wanting chaos to result in rejoining and the idea rejoining the EU has 'virtually no support' is not supported by evidence, especially in Scotland
And as far as Boris is concerned he will not be in office in the years to come before brexit is deemed a success or otherwise
A conservative appointment to the Supreme Court before the election could be good for the Democrats. Some people with socially conservative views who might otherwise go Red will feel protected by the SC and vote Blue instead to get rid of Trump. But if the appointment is delayed to after the election the same people might hold their noses and vote for Trump.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
That's bullshit though. The £10k fine is for leaving the house if you've tested positive for the virus. That's a reaction to the c*** in Bolton going on a pub crawl despite having just tested positive. It's a fair deterrent to this kind of seriously irresponsible behaviour, my issue is that it needs to be properly enforced not by neighbours shopping each other, that's just wrong. I'd look to council based door knockers with a list of houses where people are supposed to be isolating and give the councils a share of the revenue.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Actually I voted remain
And there are very many who want to see brexit fail and are encouraging that failure so we can rejoin
Who here wants to rejoin the EU? Even in the country it has virtually no support.
I don't want Brexit to fail but I can't see how it is going to succeed. Can you genuinely point to any evidence the Tories will make a success of it when you yourself admit Johnson is doing a terrible job?
Scott is the leading proponent for wanting chaos to result in rejoining and the idea rejoining the EU has 'virtually no support' is not supported by evidence, especially in Scotland
And as far as Boris is concerned he will not be in office in the years to come before brexit is deemed a success or otherwise
So one person here wants to rejoin, not exactly a mass movement is it?
If Scotland wants to rejoin, then that's up to them, they can have their Indy referendum and they can make that choice. The UK as a whole opposes rejoin.
You're a good man Big G but you seem to be a bit obsessed with Brexit not working out. Which it might not but maybe the answer is the people running it, not those who said we shouldn't do it.
The problem is most voters actually back Boris on the rule of 6, so it is not really a vote winner to oppose that.
I think this fully identifies your problem. You are exclusively fixated on the future prospects of the Conservative party. Most normal people are fixated on the objective of not killing another 20k people and demolishing the economy. Who is in government is not the issue right now - life and limb is.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
The Labour fantasists think they're going to be in power tomorrow. The rest of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and well into 2024 before they even get a chance are going to drag for them, I fear
Ok, can he outline in a few short steps how this can be achieved? I'm all for more testing and getting to the place he suggests, what is Labour's plan to achieve that. This is, once again, why he's making absolutely no impression. Where is Labour's shadow health secretary setting out what Labour would do differently. The assumption that the government doesn't share that goal is what's wrong, the obviously do, they are just completely incompetent. The issue isn't the goal, it's the process, everyone can see that and Starmer not realising that is pretty disappointing.
A conservative appointment to the Supreme Court before the election could be good for the Democrats. Some people with socially conservative views who might otherwise go Red will feel protected by the SC and vote Blue instead to get rid of Trump. But if the appointment is delayed to after the election the same people might hold their noses and vote for Trump.
Yes, I tend to agree. Trump would do better if he waits, but Mitch McConnell may see Trump losing and want to bank the nomination.
Palantir isn't a shadowy AI firm. People just like to say that because they don't like the owner. It doesn't do anything particularly out of the ordinary.
Was there an open procurement process so that its record could be properly scrutinised and measured against clear criteria? Were other firms allowed to bid?
Those are the issues. Much like the appointment of Dido Harding, who is rightly getting a kicking in the press today, as she did on here a couple of weeks ago - much to the derision of some on here.
On Palantir one of the issues is that they don't exactly have a lot of competitors for what they do, at least none with their level of bandwidth. If it went to tender we'd end up being bound by law to go with the lowest bid that would come from a lesser firm like Serco who specialise in making it up as they go along.
On Harding, well it does seem as though the media is about two weeks behind PB.
Oh come off it: dispensing with a proper procurement process on the basis that there is no competitor is a pathetic excuse.
Harding about to become CE of NHS from Simon Stevens.
That's bullshit though. The £10k fine is for leaving the house if you've tested positive for the virus. That's a reaction to the c*** in Bolton going on a pub crawl despite having just tested positive. It's a fair deterrent to this kind of seriously irresponsible behaviour, my issue is that it needs to be properly enforced not by neighbours shopping each other, that's just wrong. I'd look to council based door knockers with a list of houses where people are supposed to be isolating and give the councils a share of the revenue.
And it is only applicable on consistent breaches, £1,000 is the starting point
That's bullshit though. The £10k fine is for leaving the house if you've tested positive for the virus. That's a reaction to the c*** in Bolton going on a pub crawl despite having just tested positive. It's a fair deterrent to this kind of seriously irresponsible behaviour, my issue is that it needs to be properly enforced not by neighbours shopping each other, that's just wrong. I'd look to council based door knockers with a list of houses where people are supposed to be isolating and give the councils a share of the revenue.
I thought they had already said local authorities get to keep the fine revenue.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Interesting to note though Starmer ruled out No Deal on Marr this morning, so his Brexit position is now that of May's last year ie a post Brexit trade deal with the EU must be done while Boris' Brexit position has moved closer to that of Farage ie ready to go to No Deal if necessary
Well obviously. Nobody sane wants no deal.
I don't want no deal but I prefer it over a bad deal and if no deal is yet available then I see getting no deal potentially as a mere stepping stone until we get a good deal.
Good deal > no deal > bad deal.
Philip it is very sad to see you still convinced this is the case after so much evidence this is not the reality.
No Deal is not a successful outcome and the EU knows it. If we No Deal they will sit and wait for us to come back and accept their demands.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
If we No Deal then the EU will be harmed as much or more than we will given the issues of disagreement that are sparking the risk of No Deal.
Take fish for instance. The EU wants 75% of our sovereign fish, we've offered them 50%, if there's no deal they get 0%.
The EU may think we will come back and accept their demands, if they think that they'd be very much mistaken.
They also thought we'd accept any deal so gave May a terrible one, we rejected it. They also thought we'd never vote to leave so gave Cameron a terrible renegotiation, we rejected it. They also thought we'd suffer from not joining the Euro, we rejected it and thrived.
Einstein reportedly said that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Really? That's a bit lame for a London based worker. Even I drink oat milk cortados (assuming oatly barista) and have avo, poached eggs and smoked salmon on sourdough toast from time to time.
I remember when I said Dido Harding would be an absolute disaster and that she'd failed upwards.
I recall being laughed at and attacked on here.
Were you? I don't remember many people, if any, saying they thought she was a good appointment. The overwhelming majority of posters quickly pointed out her disastrous time at Talk Talk.
I was told TalkTalk was irrelevant as it wasn't her fault it was hacked. And that technical experience didn't matter for her new role.
Management experience seemingly wasn't important either
I think you are projecting a small number of posters views. I think all the regulars who have any experience in tech and business were head in hands at what a terrible decision it was, like the choices made over the app.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Actually I voted remain
And there are very many who want to see brexit fail and are encouraging that failure so we can rejoin
Who here wants to rejoin the EU? Even in the country it has virtually no support.
I don't want Brexit to fail but I can't see how it is going to succeed. Can you genuinely point to any evidence the Tories will make a success of it when you yourself admit Johnson is doing a terrible job?
Scott is the leading proponent for wanting chaos to result in rejoining and the idea rejoining the EU has 'virtually no support' is not supported by evidence, especially in Scotland
And as far as Boris is concerned he will not be in office in the years to come before brexit is deemed a success or otherwise
So one person here wants to rejoin, not exactly a mass movement is it?
If Scotland wants to rejoin, then that's up to them, they can have their Indy referendum and they can make that choice. The UK as a whole opposes rejoin.
You're a good man Big G but you seem to be a bit obsessed with Brexit not working out. Which it might not but maybe the answer is the people running it, not those who said we shouldn't do it.
There are many more than Scott on this forum wanting to be part of the EU
And I would expect a vote today would reverse the referendum and seek to rejoin
I'd have a bit more time for people who bleated on about "Sweden!" if they ever provided a practical and usable list of measures to follow. Some of them don't even seem to know what Sweden did - seeming to believe that Sweden imposed no restrictions and magically got some sort of perfect outcome.
List and compare Sweden's restrictions to our own, come up with a series of restrictions and things to allow, explain why following the latter would work out well, and maybe there would be something to discuss. But people seem to thinks saying "The Swedish Model" with no specifics and some magical effect would take place.
Tegnell said during his interview with Andrew Neil that every country was different and had different issues, that doing exactly what one country did wouldn't work in another country, and that they could only even try a less-restrictive version of restrictions up front than us because their initial spread was increasing slowly while ours was going up rapidly. He also made it clear that if you could use the term "The Swedish Model" it simplified down to choosing a level of restrictions that worked to bring down the spread of the virus and then sticking to it in the long term so people didn't get confused. In that, he has a point.
Unfortunately for most of the "Swedish Model!" types on here, that would mean more stringent restrictions than we had through August and early September (as, empirically, they did not suffice to reduce spread and resulted in an increase) and then sticking to those more stringent restrictions. Again, though, a specific list of what restrictions and why would be informative.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Interesting to note though Starmer ruled out No Deal on Marr this morning, so his Brexit position is now that of May's last year ie a post Brexit trade deal with the EU must be done while Boris' Brexit position has moved closer to that of Farage ie ready to go to No Deal if necessary
Well obviously. Nobody sane wants no deal.
I don't want no deal but I prefer it over a bad deal and if no deal is yet available then I see getting no deal potentially as a mere stepping stone until we get a good deal.
Good deal > no deal > bad deal.
Not all bad deals are the same.
Good deal > not very good deal > pathetic deal > no deal > attrocious deal.
Brexit has happened, I continue to think Brexit was the wrong course of action but Remain disappeared when Johnson won his mandate to deliver Brexit in 2019.
Now the questions about trade deals seem perfectly sensible to me. I support EEA, which is not remaining.
And the majority of Remainers I think oppose rejoin, the debate is settled and you won. Get over it!
Interesting to note though Starmer ruled out No Deal on Marr this morning, so his Brexit position is now that of May's last year ie a post Brexit trade deal with the EU must be done while Boris' Brexit position has moved closer to that of Farage ie ready to go to No Deal if necessary
I'm not quite Starmer just expects a deal which is a problem as Boris won the last election on the basis of his agreement (which he is now backing away from) and his oven ready deal.
All Starmer is saying to Boris is give us the deal you promised
Boris also promised in the Tory manifesto to do a trade deal that regained control over UK fishing waters and ended EU sovereignty over UK law and if not to end the implementation period regardless, without the EU conceding on that there will therefore be no trade deal
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the last whisper that we might to be about to concede at least something on fishing. I would though, expect to see the next agreement with the EU signed in Johnson's blood, and with that blood drawn from him publicly.
There will be no concessions on fishing and I have not seen any talk of such, state aid maybe but not fishing
I'd have a bit more time for people who bleated on about "Sweden!" if they ever provided a practical and usable list of measures to follow. Some of them don't even seem to know what Sweden did - seeming to believe that Sweden imposed no restrictions and magically got some sort of perfect outcome.
List and compare Sweden's restrictions to our own, come up with a series of restrictions and things to allow, explain why following the latter would work out well, and maybe there would be something to discuss. But people seem to thinks saying "The Swedish Model" with no specifics and some magical effect would take place.
Tegnell said during his interview with Andrew Neil that every country was different and had different issues, that doing exactly what one country did wouldn't work in another country, and that they could only even try a less-restrictive version of restrictions up front than us because their initial spread was increasing slowly while ours was going up rapidly. He also made it clear that if you could use the term "The Swedish Model" it simplified down to choosing a level of restrictions that worked to bring down the spread of the virus and then sticking to it in the long term so people didn't get confused. In that, he has a point.
Unfortunately for most of the "Swedish Model!" types on here, that would mean more stringent restrictions than we had through August and early September (as, empirically, they did not suffice to reduce spread and resulted in an increase) and then sticking to those more stringent restrictions. Again, though, a specific list of what restrictions and why would be informative.
But everyone just loves Sweden, because they gave us Abba and Ikea. So they must know how to manage a pandemic.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Really? That's a bit lame for a London based worker. Even I drink oat milk cortados (assuming oatly barista) and have avo, poached eggs and smoked salmon on sourdough toast from time to time.
I think it's time I joined the Tories, I clearly am not woke enough for Labour
The problem is most voters actually back Boris on the rule of 6, so it is not really a vote winner to oppose that.
I think this fully identifies your problem. You are exclusively fixated on the future prospects of the Conservative party. Most normal people are fixated on the objective of not killing another 20k people and demolishing the economy. Who is in government is not the issue right now - life and limb is.
Well even if you ignore electoral consequences you still have to face the fact that if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and face yet more debt through another furlough and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
There are no easy answers to Covid, you have to find some balance between protecting lives and the economy and emotional wellbeing by keeping businesses open and enabling people to physically see each other but with testing and social distancing and customers wearing masks and via the rule of 6
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
I'm woke as fuck I only have whatever instant coffee is cheapest in Aldi.
That's sad. Coffee is such a great drink. Bad coffee (all instant) is so disappointing.
Boarding school + Royal Navy banished any epicurean tendencies with relentlessly shit food. Now, I honestly don't give a fuck what anything tastes like. It's just fuel.
if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
Rarely seen that either but why is oat milk woke?
Makes for very good flat whites and cortados and isn't dairy based. Oat milk is the most environmentally friendly type of non dairy based milk drink. Soy, almond and coconut milk all have huge environmental issues including deforestation, water disruption, honey bee destroying and more deforestation in tropical countries. Oats can be grown in temperate climates in Europe and North America, doesn't require a stupid amount of water to grow and doesn't destroy existing ecosystems. It's a superb crop to grow in general and oat milk, at least oatly, is actually great in coffee and over cereal.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
Rarely seen that either but why is oat milk woke?
Makes for very good flat whites and cortados and isn't dairy based. Oat milk is the most environmentally friendly type of non dairy based milk drink. Soy, almond and coconut milk all have huge environmental issues including deforestation, water disruption, honey bee destroying and more deforestation in tropical countries. Oats can be grown in temperate climates in Europe and North America, doesn't require a stupid amount of water to grow and doesn't destroy existing ecosystems. It's a superb crop to grow in general and oat milk, at least oatly, is actually great in coffee and over cereal.
Yes, the wokerati are surely drinking oat milk flat whites.
Turmeric lattes are actually v nice.
I've never had one tbh, it doesn't appeal to me. Grew up drinking turmeric milk as a kid and absolutely hated it. I think if you can taste it then there is too much turmeric, it's for colour and health benefits because it tastes awful.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
Rarely seen that either but why is oat milk woke?
Makes for very good flat whites and cortados and isn't dairy based. Oat milk is the most environmentally friendly type of non dairy based milk drink. Soy, almond and coconut milk all have huge environmental issues including deforestation, water disruption, honey bee destroying and more deforestation in tropical countries. Oats can be grown in temperate climates in Europe and North America, doesn't require a stupid amount of water to grow and doesn't destroy existing ecosystems. It's a superb crop to grow in general and oat milk, at least oatly, is actually great in coffee and over cereal.
I've taken to drinking almond milk lately but not for any "woke" reasons, I couldn't care less about veganism and love dairy. Instead I'm drinking it for nutritional purposes, I'm trying a ketogenic diet and milk contains a lot of carbs whereas almond milk nutrition is fat based. Getting my dairy from cream and cheese which is more fat based.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
Rarely seen that either but why is oat milk woke?
Because its Vegan, but supposedly without the environmental damage of the likes of Soya Milk.
But why is that woke?
I wouldn't really say it was, but wokeists are into it, because it fits their wider world view of environment protection, extremist views on what is animal cruelty and virtue signalling* not paying companies that exploit workers in developing countries.
* I say this as all the types like this I have met, are happy to be consumers in things like tech in which the ethics are worse.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
The Labour fantasists think they're going to be in power tomorrow. The rest of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and well into 2024 before they even get a chance are going to drag for them, I fear
I'd have a bit more time for people who bleated on about "Sweden!" if they ever provided a practical and usable list of measures to follow. Some of them don't even seem to know what Sweden did - seeming to believe that Sweden imposed no restrictions and magically got some sort of perfect outcome.
List and compare Sweden's restrictions to our own, come up with a series of restrictions and things to allow, explain why following the latter would work out well, and maybe there would be something to discuss. But people seem to thinks saying "The Swedish Model" with no specifics and some magical effect would take place.
Tegnell said during his interview with Andrew Neil that every country was different and had different issues, that doing exactly what one country did wouldn't work in another country, and that they could only even try a less-restrictive version of restrictions up front than us because their initial spread was increasing slowly while ours was going up rapidly. He also made it clear that if you could use the term "The Swedish Model" it simplified down to choosing a level of restrictions that worked to bring down the spread of the virus and then sticking to it in the long term so people didn't get confused. In that, he has a point.
Unfortunately for most of the "Swedish Model!" types on here, that would mean more stringent restrictions than we had through August and early September (as, empirically, they did not suffice to reduce spread and resulted in an increase) and then sticking to those more stringent restrictions. Again, though, a specific list of what restrictions and why would be informative.
A valuable post. I get as frustrated with unspecific appeals to the 'Swedish Model' as you do, but to be fair to them they do somehow appear to have hit a sweet spot of restrictions that is keeping cases steady at the moment.
The conclusion indeed seems to be that carefully selecting the right combination of restrictions and sticking to them for the long haul is what actually works - like consuming 1500 calories consistently rather than yo-yoing between 500 and 3000.
People would still find endless ways to complain though, because no one actually likes diets...
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
Rarely seen that either but why is oat milk woke?
Makes for very good flat whites and cortados and isn't dairy based. Oat milk is the most environmentally friendly type of non dairy based milk drink. Soy, almond and coconut milk all have huge environmental issues including deforestation, water disruption, honey bee destroying and more deforestation in tropical countries. Oats can be grown in temperate climates in Europe and North America, doesn't require a stupid amount of water to grow and doesn't destroy existing ecosystems. It's a superb crop to grow in general and oat milk, at least oatly, is actually great in coffee and over cereal.
Okay but isn't that a good thing
Yes, it's why oat milk has broken out of hipsterdom and into the wider world. It's a shame that we didn't have oat milk before soy, it could have saved a lot of of the rainforest.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
We've got oat milk in our fridge. My daughter didn't have any milk on her year abroad at University and seems to have developed lactose intolerance as a result.
(Either that or I am just incredibly woke, take your pick).
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Really? That's a bit lame for a London based worker. Even I drink oat milk cortados (assuming oatly barista) and have avo, poached eggs and smoked salmon on sourdough toast from time to time.
I had Steak Lorne sausages (square) cooked in a George Foreman grill for breakfast.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
We've got oat milk in our fridge. My daughter didn't have any milk on her year abroad at University and seems to have developed lactose intolerance as a result.
(Either that or I am just incredibly woke, take your pick).
Personally i prefer almond milk...but that will get be cancelled by the more extremist elements.
I have honestly ever seen my peers drinking a normal latte or a cappuccino. I really want to know where this woke coffee stuff has come from.
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
Oat milk is huge. Oatly are struggling to keep up with demand.
Rarely seen that either but why is oat milk woke?
Because its Vegan, but supposedly without the environmental damage of the likes of Soya Milk.
But why is that woke?
I wouldn't really say it was, but wokeists are into it, because it fits their wider world view of environment protection, extremist views on what is animal cruelty and virtue signalling* not paying companies that exploit workers in developing countries.
* I say this as all the types like this I have met, are happy to be consumers in things like tech in which the ethics are worse.
I think oat milk has broken out vs other non dairy milks because it has far fewer contradictions. Almond, coconut and soy milk are all terrible for the environment (and are varying degree of rubbish tasting). Oat milk is great.
Admitting to drinking instant coffee should be an auto ban from PB !!!!
I have to admit that I used to drink instant coffee. I even used to drink the stuff in front of young children. To my defence, back then most coffee drinkers were using the brown powder, at least most of the time, and no-one really thought of the consequences. Even at the workplace it was considered an acceptable way of having a break. "I'm just popping downsatirs for a coffee!" we'd say, and it was always instant. Thankfully I managed to kick the habit for good some time in the 90's.
I hope admitting this dark past does not mean I'll be cast out of PB.
Presumably he knows a spell that can achieve this?
As Starmer thinks its so easy to set up such a testing system perhaps he will condemn Andy Burnham for not doing so in Greater Manchester and Mark Drakeford for not doing so in Wales.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Julian Lewis has had the Tory whip withdrawn but not been expelled from the party.
if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
If we go into full sustained lockdowns every few months unless and until a vaccine is found not sure that is true, more and more people will be made unemployed with no new jobs being created for them to take instead or we will have to provide so much furlough the deficit will be greater than it has ever been before, not to mention the mental health costs of not being able to physically see family and friends for months on end
Palantir isn't a shadowy AI firm. People just like to say that because they don't like the owner. It doesn't do anything particularly out of the ordinary.
Was there an open procurement process so that its record could be properly scrutinised and measured against clear criteria? Were other firms allowed to bid?
Those are the issues. Much like the appointment of Dido Harding, who is rightly getting a kicking in the press today, as she did on here a couple of weeks ago - much to the derision of some on here.
On Palantir one of the issues is that they don't exactly have a lot of competitors for what they do, at least none with their level of bandwidth. If it went to tender we'd end up being bound by law to go with the lowest bid that would come from a lesser firm like Serco who specialise in making it up as they go along.
On Harding, well it does seem as though the media is about two weeks behind PB.
Oh come off it: dispensing with a proper procurement process on the basis that there is no competitor is a pathetic excuse.
Ok you go an find an public data ML specialist with the bandwidth to handle the brief. You're looking at possibly three companies, Google, Palantir and maybe IBM. Of the three Palantir is the most specialised and Google the least palatable given what kind of data sharing their contracts require and IBM are lightyears behind best practice in the sector.
If you don't want these companies doing it then it's going to the City and hiring 50-60 data analysts and data scientists and another 30-40 data engineers to back them up and bringing it all in house. That's a huge undertaking and would take years to bring together properly.
Admitting to drinking instant coffee should be an auto ban from PB !!!!
I have to admit that I used to drink instant coffee. I even used to drink the stuff in front of young children. To my defence, back then most coffee drinkers were using the brown powder, at least most of the time, and no-one really thought of the consequences. Even at the workplace it was considered an acceptable way of having a break. "I'm just popping downsatirs for a coffee!" we'd say, and it was always instant. Thankfully I managed to kick the habit for good some time in the 90's.
I hope admitting this dark past does not mean I'll be cast out of PB.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance...
Classic Trump....USA...USA...USA....80% Chinese owned...National Security, National Security, National Security, China still have the algorithm...Drain the swamp, drain the swamp, drain the swamp, one of my donors has got the contract.
if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
If we go into full sustained lockdowns every few months unless and until a vaccine is found not sure that is true, more and more people will be made unemployed with no new jobs being created for them to take instead or we will have to provide so much furlough the deficit will be greater than it has ever been before, not to mention the mental health costs of not being able to physically see family and friends for months on end
The economy will still recover even if there is a long and very hard lockdown. The proper question is how long will it take to recover.
A 60 year old who dies of covid will never recover. Not after 12 months not after 10 years.
if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
If we go into full sustained lockdowns every few months unless and until a vaccine is found not sure that is true, more and more people will be made unemployed with no new jobs being created for them to take instead or we will have to provide so much furlough the deficit will be greater than it has ever been before, not to mention the mental health costs of not being able to physically see family and friends for months on end
The economy will still recover even if there is a long and very hard lockdown. The proper question is how long will it take to recover.
A 60 year old who dies of covid will never recover. Not after 12 months not after 10 years.
If we go to sustained lockdowns we will be faced with the biggest depression since the 1930s, maybe worse, a 20 year old may never recover or ever get on their feet and find a decent job. Or else a deficit to fund everlasting furlough which will make that from 2008 look like water in a paddling pool.
60 year olds can still be advised to stay at home as far as possible and we can still continue with masks, testing and social distancing without another full lockdown
if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
If we go into full sustained lockdowns every few months unless and until a vaccine is found not sure that is true, more and more people will be made unemployed with no new jobs being created for them to take instead or we will have to provide so much furlough the deficit will be greater than it has ever been before, not to mention the mental health costs of not being able to physically see family and friends for months on end
The economy will still recover even if there is a long and very hard lockdown. The proper question is how long will it take to recover.
A 60 year old who dies of covid will never recover. Not after 12 months not after 10 years.
And while the economy is recovering there will be fewer resources so leading to more deaths.
Not to mention the immediate negative health effects a lockdown causes.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
The Labour fantasists think they're going to be in power tomorrow. The rest of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and well into 2024 before they even get a chance are going to drag for them, I fear
Don't you think it is both a tiny bit childish and a tiny bit morally, politically and intellectually bankrupt to be saying, effectively, "I'm the king of the castle for the next three years and there's nothing you can do about it, so there?" If that is your best point (and it is), silence is an alternative worth considering.
The reason we might be heading back into lockdown - stupidity and selfishness.
Son runs a bar
Last night he sparked a huge row by barring a (young) person who he knows should be in quarantine.
Then 3 guys in their 40's refused to do anything but stand at the bar - after several polite requests were refused they were ejected and a fight ensued.
He reckons where he is only about 50% wear masks in shops (10k town) - where I am (100K plus) the wearing of masks in shops is over 95%
I was walking the dog yesterday in a country park and I passed 2 young lads - probably 15 or 16 who were wearing masks even there - and that place (at least on the trails through the woods) is always quiet.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
The Labour fantasists think they're going to be in power tomorrow. The rest of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and well into 2024 before they even get a chance are going to drag for them, I fear
Under the terms of the FTPA the next election is due on 2nd May 2024 - just over 3 years and 7 months from today.If we go back in time for the same period, we find ouselves in February 2017 in the middle of the Copeland by-election campaign and 7 months beyond Theresa May becoming PM. That still feels pretty recent to me.
if you lockdown again to protect more lives you damage the economy again and if you stay open regardless you protect the economy but at the cost of more lives.
If we go into full sustained lockdowns every few months unless and until a vaccine is found not sure that is true, more and more people will be made unemployed with no new jobs being created for them to take instead or we will have to provide so much furlough the deficit will be greater than it has ever been before, not to mention the mental health costs of not being able to physically see family and friends for months on end
The economy will still recover even if there is a long and very hard lockdown. The proper question is how long will it take to recover.
A 60 year old who dies of covid will never recover. Not after 12 months not after 10 years.
I think my view on this has changed - and i'm in my 50's
In most areas of life we live with an element of risk - should we ban motor transport because we know people will die?
The question should be how much economic destruction makes sense vs lives saved.
That sounds harsh but governments make those determinations in all sorts of areas
I don't profess to know the answer and I am all for following sensible precautions.
But ruining your economy and the life chances of countless people seems utterly stupid
I say this as someone who was all for the first lockdown - but you cant keep this up for years.
Starmer also says he does not want 'another divisive Scottish referendum' on independence
'Does not want' is by no means the same as ruling one out, which is what PM Johnson has said.
Well as the Tories have a majority of 80 until 2024 what he says only matters after then anyway
Thought at least one of those elected as a Tory had been expelled? Must say I originally thought the next election wouldn't be until 2024; now I'm not so sure.
Unless polls consistently come out showing a 20% +Tory lead for six months, very unlikely now, there will not be an election until 2024, that is guaranteed
Is It your belief that if the PM changes, they should seek their own mandate as May and Johnson both did?
No, Brown did not, Major did not and nor will should any successor for Boris, however as I have said I remain of the view Boris will stay Tory leader and PM until 2024
Brown was widely criticised for not and likely lost support in the polls as a result of not having an election.
Ironically enough he inherited a similar position to what Johnson's successor might.
Brown made the sensible decision, he had a comfortable majority of 66 and therefore would have been an idiot to risk that at an early election, especially as the polls were neck and neck after the 2007 party conferences, in the end he got another 3 years as PM before losing power (while still preventing an outright Tory majority in 2010).
May and Boris were in a different scenario as May only had a small majority of 12 and Boris had no majority at all, the Tories now have a majority of 80 so are far closer to the position Labour were under when Brown too over ie very little to gain and everything to lose from an early election
I recall a Boris Johnson (ring any bells?) criticising Brown strongly.
So what Boris would not be the new PM anyway, it would likely be Sunak and Boris is the elected PM already.
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
The Labour fantasists think they're going to be in power tomorrow. The rest of 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and well into 2024 before they even get a chance are going to drag for them, I fear
Don't you think it is both a tiny bit childish and a tiny bit morally, politically and intellectually bankrupt to be saying, effectively, "I'm the king of the castle for the next three years and there's nothing you can do about it, so there?" If that is your best point (and it is), silence is an alternative worth considering.
Thanks for the advice. I've considered it, and will keep posting whatever the hell I please, thank you very much.
Oddly enough, I haven't noticed you recommending silence to those spamming hundreds of posts and retweets that consist of nothing more than whining or childish jibes, but whatever floats your boat. They can say what they like, and so can I.
Comments
I would though, expect to see the next agreement with the EU signed in Johnson's blood, and with that blood drawn from him publicly.
Good deal > no deal > bad deal.
He treats me like a ragdoll"
He watches the television
Says, "I don't owe him nothing, but if he comes back again
Tell him to wait right here for me or,
Try again tomorrow I'm gonna quit tomorrow
I'm gonna quit tomorrow"
(with apologies to P. Farrell)
The media and Tories have a lot to answer for
No Deal is not a successful outcome and the EU knows it. If we No Deal they will sit and wait for us to come back and accept their demands.
And as far as Boris is concerned he will not be in office in the years to come before brexit is deemed a success or otherwise
We Tories had to wait a full 5 years from when Cameron was elected Tory leader in 2005 until the next general election in 2010 so I am sure you Labour supporters can wait 4 years after Starmer was elected Labour leader until election 2024
If Scotland wants to rejoin, then that's up to them, they can have their Indy referendum and they can make that choice. The UK as a whole opposes rejoin.
You're a good man Big G but you seem to be a bit obsessed with Brexit not working out. Which it might not but maybe the answer is the people running it, not those who said we shouldn't do it.
What on Earth is a turmeric latte?
Trump would do better if he waits, but Mitch McConnell may see Trump losing and want to bank the nomination.
No need for a Procurement process
#rewardsforfailure
A bit like avocado on toast, never seen anyone actually having it!
So another lockdown then
Srarmer. 500,000 have been projected
So even Starmer would be 500,000 daily tests short
This numbers game is based on misinformation and lack of prioritising by Harding
If we No Deal then the EU will be harmed as much or more than we will given the issues of disagreement that are sparking the risk of No Deal.
Take fish for instance. The EU wants 75% of our sovereign fish, we've offered them 50%, if there's no deal they get 0%.
The EU may think we will come back and accept their demands, if they think that they'd be very much mistaken.
They also thought we'd accept any deal so gave May a terrible one, we rejected it.
They also thought we'd never vote to leave so gave Cameron a terrible renegotiation, we rejected it.
They also thought we'd suffer from not joining the Euro, we rejected it and thrived.
Einstein reportedly said that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
I don't want chaos. I voted against chaos.
Chaos is what we got.
We told you it would be chaos.
We were right, sadly.
And I would expect a vote today would reverse the referendum and seek to rejoin
List and compare Sweden's restrictions to our own, come up with a series of restrictions and things to allow, explain why following the latter would work out well, and maybe there would be something to discuss. But people seem to thinks saying "The Swedish Model" with no specifics and some magical effect would take place.
Tegnell said during his interview with Andrew Neil that every country was different and had different issues, that doing exactly what one country did wouldn't work in another country, and that they could only even try a less-restrictive version of restrictions up front than us because their initial spread was increasing slowly while ours was going up rapidly. He also made it clear that if you could use the term "The Swedish Model" it simplified down to choosing a level of restrictions that worked to bring down the spread of the virus and then sticking to it in the long term so people didn't get confused. In that, he has a point.
Unfortunately for most of the "Swedish Model!" types on here, that would mean more stringent restrictions than we had through August and early September (as, empirically, they did not suffice to reduce spread and resulted in an increase) and then sticking to those more stringent restrictions. Again, though, a specific list of what restrictions and why would be informative.
Good deal > not very good deal > pathetic deal > no deal > attrocious deal.
Mashed avocado on top of toast or a rice cake, topped with pomegrante seeds and feta cheese. Delicious!
There are no easy answers to Covid, you have to find some balance between protecting lives and the economy and emotional wellbeing by keeping businesses open and enabling people to physically see each other but with testing and social distancing and customers wearing masks and via the rule of 6
You are missing out.
* I say this as all the types like this I have met, are happy to be consumers in things like tech in which the ethics are worse.
The conclusion indeed seems to be that carefully selecting the right combination of restrictions and sticking to them for the long haul is what actually works - like consuming 1500 calories consistently rather than yo-yoing between 500 and 3000.
People would still find endless ways to complain though, because no one actually likes diets...
(Either that or I am just incredibly woke, take your pick).
I hope admitting this dark past does not mean I'll be cast out of PB.
The TikTok deal solves quite literally nothing
https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/19/tiktok-deal-terms/
https://twitter.com/sbanjo/status/1307466700284211202
A 60 year old who dies of covid will never recover. Not after 12 months not after 10 years.
Proper Geordie now canny lad.
It solved how Trump could funnel funds to his mates.
60 year olds can still be advised to stay at home as far as possible and we can still continue with masks, testing and social distancing without another full lockdown
Not to mention the immediate negative health effects a lockdown causes.
Son runs a bar
Last night he sparked a huge row by barring a (young) person who he knows should be in quarantine.
Then 3 guys in their 40's refused to do anything but stand at the bar - after several polite requests were refused they were ejected and a fight ensued.
He reckons where he is only about 50% wear masks in shops (10k town) - where I am (100K plus) the wearing of masks in shops is over 95%
I was walking the dog yesterday in a country park and I passed 2 young lads - probably 15 or 16 who were wearing masks even there - and that place (at least on the trails through the woods) is always quiet.
https://twitter.com/electiondice/status/1307619476905418753
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/20/covid-scepticism-behind-high-bolton-infection-rate-says-local-mp
In most areas of life we live with an element of risk - should we ban motor transport because we know people will die?
The question should be how much economic destruction makes sense vs lives saved.
That sounds harsh but governments make those determinations in all sorts of areas
I don't profess to know the answer and I am all for following sensible precautions.
But ruining your economy and the life chances of countless people seems utterly stupid
I say this as someone who was all for the first lockdown - but you cant keep this up for years.
Oddly enough, I haven't noticed you recommending silence to those spamming hundreds of posts and retweets that consist of nothing more than whining or childish jibes, but whatever floats your boat. They can say what they like, and so can I.