I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
That is cynical....... But there's no doubt that the anti-lockdown, put the economy first brigade are almost exclusively from the right wing (although I know most right wingers on here do take the health crisis seriously - indeed, I think me and bluest of the blue are usually on the same page on this, if on nothing else). For once, though, the left do seem more united. I'm not aware of any vocal anti-restriction Labour MPs, for example - there may be a few, but if there are they're keeping quiet.
The reading I've gotten from most of the various labour tweets, where they are unhappy, is "we hope that we won't be in T3 for long" rather than "RAHA RAH I AM ANGRY NO LOCKDOWN EVER" like the bugnuts brigade on the Tory back benches.
That's how it should be and I think it will inspire confidence in many. I maintain it's a logistically complex process given those involved but nothing that can't be resolved with adequate planning and co-ordination.
The logistics of the temperature-controlled vaccines especially are going to be a nightmare, but there's a lot of planning going into the distribution.
The production has already been scaled-up by the manufacturers, underwritten by governments so millions of doses will be available immediately on approval - there will be nurses with vaccines in care homes within hours.
The problem is they'll have to come back three weeks later to do the second dose so they need to do "everyone" in a particular tranche or cohort (very grown up words) within a 3-week window before they repeat the whole process.
Yes, the logistics are going to go in waves, with the second dose for the first tranche underway as the first doses go to the second tranche in the same area.
I don't think this is going to be that big a deal.
There will be distribution centres. They will have freezers. Once the vaccine is removed from its dry ice packaging, then it can be stored in a regular refreigerator or freezer for five days.
But that's largely irrelevant as there won't be vaccines lying around: they'll open four or five packages from Pfizer every day in large cities. The issue will be getting enough made, not the fact that they are slightly awkward to deal with.
Agreed, it shouldn't be too difficult and we have a load of logistics experts on it.
BTW, did you see my tag from earlier today, a question about the reasons behind UK inventions ending up with US companies?
Its quite clear that Whitty and Vallance want total lockdown, for ever, everywhere.
Ordinary people are completely stupid idiots who cannot be trusted to make the simplest decisions. They should only be allowed out when they have been fully vaccinated and then only with supervision.
Its quite clear that Whitty and Vallance want total lockdown, for ever, everywhere.
Why? What's their motive? Is there some QAnon type conspiracy I'm missing here? What's in it for them?
One life lost is one too many for a lot of these people, their remit is to save lives, not consider the cost of what they are doing.
If you take @contrarian's statement at face value - that "Whitty and Vallance want total lockdown, for ever, everywhere" - then you have to assume there's some conspiracy at work.
SAGE (and me and most other people, I suspect) will have been surprised by how quickly the virus took off again, and how quickly the hospitals filled.
I think we all missed what a big factor the arrival of winter, and everybody being forced indoors, would have on transmission rates. I think we all also assumed that the measures to shield older people would be more effective, and that a lot of this would burn through younger cohorts quickly.
We were wrong. The fact that even Sweden and the most liberatarian of US states are imposing pretty serious measures tells us that we have a few more months of unpleasantness ahead of us.
But we also have two and a half working vaccines. It's highly likely we'll see more vaccine good news from J&J and Novavax in the next couple of weeks. And the first people in the UK will get the vaccine next week. By the end of the year, I'd expect most NHS front line staff to have been vaccinated.
At the beginning of next year the days start to lengthen again. More and more people will have been vaccinated.
Now, Whitty and Valance may be overly cautious. But they also want to avoid disaster - which is when hospitals lack the capacity to treat the sick. Because when that happens, that IFR isn't going to be 0.2% or 1% - it'll be 3-4%.
Thank you, yes I was doing as you say.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
Somebody put it rather well when they pointed out the fatality rate in the UK is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing everyday.
If planes crash regularly, they are grounded. Just ask Boeing.
So the suggestion we should do nothing while a dangerous virus goes on the rampage is ludicrous.
Whether we are doing the right things is an altogether different question.
Not to mention the argument that Covid-19 victims would have died in a few months anyway is a defence not even Dr Shipman's lawyer would have used.
How many people are dying because they're not having their treatment for other illnesses, or haven't been diagnosed because they haven't been out of their house for ages?
I'm sorry, but this is another argument that is doing my head in - the first half of your sentence. The only reason that people are not getting treatment for other illnesses is because the hospitals are full of Covid patients and Covid precautions, and health service staff are too busy with Covid. Ergo, to restore the capacity of the health service we need to get Covid cases down to empty the hospitals and enable other treatments and diagnosis This happened in July/August, but now we've gone backwards. It is just plain wrong to see this as either/or in respect of Covid measures/other treatments.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
Who? Who is this fictional Labour supporter you've created?
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
Who? Who is this fictional Labour supporter you've created?
Well it certainly seems like what Labour were advocating last December.
Perhaps you should have considered what you were voting for.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
Who? Who is this fictional Labour supporter you've created?
God knows. There are a few serious fever dreams going on here tonight, so I think I'll give a more detailed response a miss.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
We Tories will ban indyref2 regardless respecting the once in a generation 2014 vote, just a Unionist majority next year led by Scottish Conservatives makes it easier to block indyref2
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
When people say "I just cashed out" on the US President market, do they generally, actually mean "I just had a little bet on Trump to cover losses"?
I do not of course know what other people have done (though see the thread header) but on Betfair (and with some bookmakers too) there is a "cash out" button which does what it says on the tin, in Betfair's case by placing the appropriate bets or lays to counter the ones you placed at whatever profit (or loss if the market has moved against you) there is. I'd imagine in many cases, people mean they pressed the button. We used to talk about greening-up when you had to place the bets yourself.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
When people say "I just cashed out" on the US President market, do they generally, actually mean "I just had a little bet on Trump to cover losses"?
I do not of course know what other people have done (though see the thread header) but on Betfair (and with some bookmakers too) there is a "cash out" button which does what it says on the tin, in Betfair's case by placing the appropriate bets or lays to counter the ones you placed at whatever profit (or loss if the market has moved against you) there is. I'd imagine in many cases, people mean they pressed the button. We used to talk about greening-up when you had to place the bets yourself.
So do people "cashing out" on Biden now make up part of the other side of the bet laying Trump in the header, even if indirectly?
When people say "I just cashed out" on the US President market, do they generally, actually mean "I just had a little bet on Trump to cover losses"?
I do not of course know what other people have done (though see the thread header) but on Betfair (and with some bookmakers too) there is a "cash out" button which does what it says on the tin, in Betfair's case by placing the appropriate bets or lays to counter the ones you placed at whatever profit (or loss if the market has moved against you) there is. I'd imagine in many cases, people mean they pressed the button. We used to talk about greening-up when you had to place the bets yourself.
I have recently done it, but without really understanding what is going on. Specifically, how does Betfair do the bets or lays for you without asking you for more money? Where is it getting the stake from?
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
But it was never lawful to make pupils bleed or to leave them seriously bruised for weeks later. The same would have been true of parental correction of children. I have said to them that - with hindsight - they ought to have taken themselves to A & E to be examined by medics. This guy died 17 years ago ,by the way.
Off topic, but if anybody hasn't heard it, 83-year old Dame Shirley Bassey has a brilliant new song out - Look But Don't Touch. The anthem for the Me Too age.
When people say "I just cashed out" on the US President market, do they generally, actually mean "I just had a little bet on Trump to cover losses"?
I do not of course know what other people have done (though see the thread header) but on Betfair (and with some bookmakers too) there is a "cash out" button which does what it says on the tin, in Betfair's case by placing the appropriate bets or lays to counter the ones you placed at whatever profit (or loss if the market has moved against you) there is. I'd imagine in many cases, people mean they pressed the button. We used to talk about greening-up when you had to place the bets yourself.
So do people "cashing out" on Biden now make up part of the other side of the bet laying Trump in the header, even if indirectly?
EDIT -- misread your question. Yes, the people cashing out would be laying Biden and backing Trump, so would take the other side of the lays in the header.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
But it was never lawful to make pupils bleed or to leave them seriously bruised for weeks later. The same would have been true of parental correction of children. I have said to them that - with hindsight - they ought to have taken themselves to A & E to be examined by medics. This guy died 17 years ago ,by the way.
Justin, I can’t offer more than I already have. I’m in no doubt you’re telling the truth, but that’s not the same as meeting the standard for prosecution. Unless medical records from the time were available and you imply there aren’t, then that’s not going to be proof of excessive force.
If he’s dead, they would be even less likely to investigate because there couldn’t be a court case. What would they be investigating? In these other cases, alleged co-perpetrators and people who covered up were still alive. Is that the case for your old school?
Edit - I’m assuming even the school doesn’t exist now (I take it it was Haverfordwest Grammar)?
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
And from a 2013 YouGov poll:
45% believe the state should have the power to control private rents 74% believe the state should have the power to control energy prices 35% believe the state should have the power to control food prices
When people say "I just cashed out" on the US President market, do they generally, actually mean "I just had a little bet on Trump to cover losses"?
I do not of course know what other people have done (though see the thread header) but on Betfair (and with some bookmakers too) there is a "cash out" button which does what it says on the tin, in Betfair's case by placing the appropriate bets or lays to counter the ones you placed at whatever profit (or loss if the market has moved against you) there is. I'd imagine in many cases, people mean they pressed the button. We used to talk about greening-up when you had to place the bets yourself.
I have recently done it, but without really understanding what is going on. Specifically, how does Betfair do the bets or lays for you without asking you for more money? Where is it getting the stake from?
From your existing position. It reduces your net exposure to zero.
ETA it is this notion of net exposure that also explains how layers can lay lots of big-priced contenders. They only need to cover the biggest loser, because Betfair's computer knows only one can win.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
And from a 2013 YouGov poll:
45% believe the state should have the power to control private rents 74% believe the state should have the power to control energy prices 35% believe the state should have the power to control food prices
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
Ok, I will try to answer calmly:
First, I was referring to your "How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?" comment. I should have just answered "None".
As for "the government should ban it"... Yes, I hear that from time to time. Often from those on the right, as in "the government should ban... immigration, same-sex marriages, discussion of LGBT issues in schools, women priests, etc. etc."
Isn't sourcing a graph created by a conspiracy theorist on Twitter now an officially recognised statistical discipline?
Depends if they are expert on "Scottish currency" or not...
You should ask Scotland's premier graph limner, the Haguester, if he can whip something up. I'm sure he'd be pathetically grateful that someone might take him seriously.
Its quite clear that Whitty and Vallance want total lockdown, for ever, everywhere.
Ordinary people are completely stupid idiots who cannot be trusted to make the simplest decisions. They should only be allowed out when they have been fully vaccinated and then only with supervision.
Its quite clear that Whitty and Vallance want total lockdown, for ever, everywhere.
Why? What's their motive? Is there some QAnon type conspiracy I'm missing here? What's in it for them?
One life lost is one too many for a lot of these people, their remit is to save lives, not consider the cost of what they are doing.
If you take @contrarian's statement at face value - that "Whitty and Vallance want total lockdown, for ever, everywhere" - then you have to assume there's some conspiracy at work.
SAGE (and me and most other people, I suspect) will have been surprised by how quickly the virus took off again, and how quickly the hospitals filled.
I think we all missed what a big factor the arrival of winter, and everybody being forced indoors, would have on transmission rates. I think we all also assumed that the measures to shield older people would be more effective, and that a lot of this would burn through younger cohorts quickly.
We were wrong. The fact that even Sweden and the most liberatarian of US states are imposing pretty serious measures tells us that we have a few more months of unpleasantness ahead of us.
But we also have two and a half working vaccines. It's highly likely we'll see more vaccine good news from J&J and Novavax in the next couple of weeks. And the first people in the UK will get the vaccine next week. By the end of the year, I'd expect most NHS front line staff to have been vaccinated.
At the beginning of next year the days start to lengthen again. More and more people will have been vaccinated.
Now, Whitty and Valance may be overly cautious. But they also want to avoid disaster - which is when hospitals lack the capacity to treat the sick. Because when that happens, that IFR isn't going to be 0.2% or 1% - it'll be 3-4%.
Thank you, yes I was doing as you say.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
Somebody put it rather well when they pointed out the fatality rate in the UK is the equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing everyday.
If planes crash regularly, they are grounded. Just ask Boeing.
So the suggestion we should do nothing while a dangerous virus goes on the rampage is ludicrous.
Whether we are doing the right things is an altogether different question.
Not to mention the argument that Covid-19 victims would have died in a few months anyway is a defence not even Dr Shipman's lawyer would have used.
How many people are dying because they're not having their treatment for other illnesses, or haven't been diagnosed because they haven't been out of their house for ages?
I'm sorry, but this is another argument that is doing my head in - the first half of your sentence. The only reason that people are not getting treatment for other illnesses is because the hospitals are full of Covid patients and Covid precautions, and health service staff are too busy with Covid. Ergo, to restore the capacity of the health service we need to get Covid cases down to empty the hospitals and enable other treatments and diagnosis This happened in July/August, but now we've gone backwards. It is just plain wrong to see this as either/or in respect of Covid measures/other treatments.
Quite right. We cannot do some types of major surgery at present because our ICU capacity is taken up with covid cases, with no ICU, nor theatres nor anaesthetic teams free as a result. Those covid ICU patients are average age of 60ish and 90% had no prior major co morbidities. Normal services cannot be resumed until the bug is gone as the service capacity is taken already.
No one would be happier than the NHS staff when this virus is a tragic memory, and we can resume our original jobs.
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
Am I misremembering or did Jack W mention that he was looking at buying a Bristol a few years back? Rejected in the end as being too new fangled no doubt.
My girlfriend is reporting that she is losing her sense of taste. It's not ideal considering I just restarted my immune suppression medication with a mega loading dose today.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
My girlfriend is reporting that she is losing her sense of taste. It's not ideal considering I just restarted my immune suppression medication with a mega loading dose today.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
Am I misremembering or did Jack W mention that he was looking at buying a Bristol a few years back? Rejected in the end as being too new fangled no doubt.
I was very surprised to learn recently that there is such a thing as a Beaufighter (with 4 wheels, not two and a tailwheel). And that a good friend of mine has two.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
And from a 2013 YouGov poll:
45% believe the state should have the power to control private rents 74% believe the state should have the power to control energy prices 35% believe the state should have the power to control food prices
The surprising thing isn't that there are 20% who want to 'nationalise everything' - it was the Corbyn core vote after all.
Its that this group doesn't seem to be represented on PB.
Without wishing to be accused of being part of the metropolitan elite would it be out of order to suggest they may correlate quite heavily with those who either dont understand what nationalisation involves or haven't thought about it much? Hence their absence from a site discussing politics.
When people say "I just cashed out" on the US President market, do they generally, actually mean "I just had a little bet on Trump to cover losses"?
Dunno. After a similar discussion last night, I checked my BetfairX account and was surprised to find I could recoup almost 10% of my losses on the overweight be-wigged serial loser.
My girlfriend is reporting that she is losing her sense of taste. It's not ideal considering I just restarted my immune suppression medication with a mega loading dose today.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
But it was never lawful to make pupils bleed or to leave them seriously bruised for weeks later. The same would have been true of parental correction of children. I have said to them that - with hindsight - they ought to have taken themselves to A & E to be examined by medics. This guy died 17 years ago ,by the way.
Justin, I can’t offer more than I already have. I’m in no doubt you’re telling the truth, but that’s not the same as meeting the standard for prosecution. Unless medical records from the time were available and you imply there aren’t, then that’s not going to be proof of excessive force.
If he’s dead, they would be even less likely to investigate because there couldn’t be a court case. What would they be investigating? In these other cases, alleged co-perpetrators and people who covered up were still alive. Is that the case for your old school?
Edit - I’m assuming even the school doesn’t exist now (I take it it was Haverfordwest Grammar)?
You are correct - it was HGS. I understand the point re-the perpetrator being deceased , though that was also true of Saville and Smith. I believe there have also been cases concerning the Church where Bishops and other members of the clergy have been accused of abuse some time after their demise. Damages have been paid to some victims by the Churches concerned. In the case of school abuse , perhaps LEAs could be required to do something similar.
My girlfriend is reporting that she is losing her sense of taste. It's not ideal considering I just restarted my immune suppression medication with a mega loading dose today.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
Mrs Foxy has lost most of her sense of smell and taste, it is a pretty distinctive feature of the Covid-19. I am not sure if I have it, it is hard to dodge cooped up in one house.
From our rheumatology clinics (many patients on immunosupression) there don't seem to be particularly severe covid. Indeed there is a body of opinion that those on immunosupressives might be partially protected from the out of control inflammation caused by the virus.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Report it to the police. Many of the prep schools in Wales ran similar brutal operations and it's time an example was made of some of the pretty nasty sadists. One boy I knew was caned daily for wetting his bed though it was clear to everyone he had psychological problems. The story happens to be an interesting one because the boy was the son of a menage a trois one of two Mothers a famous person. Sadly none of them wanted him so he didn't even escape during the holidays where he was left in the care of the sadistic headmaster. I heard on the radio recently that he died in a psychiatric hospital. There will be very few who knew the background.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
But it was never lawful to make pupils bleed or to leave them seriously bruised for weeks later. The same would have been true of parental correction of children. I have said to them that - with hindsight - they ought to have taken themselves to A & E to be examined by medics. This guy died 17 years ago ,by the way.
Justin, I can’t offer more than I already have. I’m in no doubt you’re telling the truth, but that’s not the same as meeting the standard for prosecution. Unless medical records from the time were available and you imply there aren’t, then that’s not going to be proof of excessive force.
If he’s dead, they would be even less likely to investigate because there couldn’t be a court case. What would they be investigating? In these other cases, alleged co-perpetrators and people who covered up were still alive. Is that the case for your old school?
Edit - I’m assuming even the school doesn’t exist now (I take it it was Haverfordwest Grammar)?
You are correct - it was HGS. I understand the point re-the perpetrator being deceased , though that was also true of Saville and Smith. I believe there have also been cases concerning the Church where Bishops and other members of the clergy have been accused of abuse some time after their demise. Damages have been paid to some victims by the Churches concerned. In the case of school abuse , perhaps LEAs could be required to do something similar.
Pembrokeshire LEA ceased to exist in 1974, Dyfed in 1996.
Again, I’m not clear who you would be going after. If you want catharsis the media might be a better bet than the police.
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
Am I misremembering or did Jack W mention that he was looking at buying a Bristol a few years back? Rejected in the end as being too new fangled no doubt.
I was very surprised to learn recently that there is such a thing as a Beaufighter (with 4 wheels, not two and a tailwheel). And that a good friend of mine has two.
And a Blenheim, Beaufort and Bristol Fighter I believe. They were obviously ahead of the curve on Britain's war fetish.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
Ok, I will try to answer calmly:
First, I was referring to your "How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?" comment. I should have just answered "None".
As for "the government should ban it"... Yes, I hear that from time to time. Often from those on the right, as in "the government should ban... immigration, same-sex marriages, discussion of LGBT issues in schools, women priests, etc. etc."
None ?
Now I'm probably more cynical than your good self but the phrase 'never let a good crisis go to waste' comes to mind.
As does 'you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs'.
People who want change are often happy to see a little bad news if they think it will result in the change they want.
And there are people of all persuasions who want to ban things - how about fox hunting for example ? Or some sort of car usage or house ownership or energy production they don't approve of. Or perhaps people who or things which originate in countries they don't approve of ?
To take something in the news in recent years, how many people support the banning of 'chlorinated chicken'.
There are lots of lots of people who are happy to have a more powerful and authoritarian government.
My girlfriend is reporting that she is losing her sense of taste. It's not ideal considering I just restarted my immune suppression medication with a mega loading dose today.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
Mrs Foxy has lost most of her sense of smell and taste, it is a pretty distinctive feature of the Covid-19. I am not sure if I have it, it is hard to dodge cooped up in one house.
From our rheumatology clinics (many patients on immunosupression) there don't seem to be particularly severe covid. Indeed there is a body of opinion that those on immunosupressives might be partially protected from the out of control inflammation caused by the virus.
Take care.
That’s interesting. Suggests that our 3 months of shielding due to Wor Lass being on a course of corticosteroids may have been OTT.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Report it to the police. Many of the prep schools in Wales ran similar brutal operations and it's time an example was made of some of the pretty nasty sadists. One boy I knew was caned daily for wetting his bed though it was clear to everyone he had psychological problems. The story happens to be an interesting one because the boy was the son of a menage a trois one of two Mothers a famous person. Sadly none of them wanted him so he didn't even escape during the holidays where he was left in the care of the sadistic headmaster. I heard on the radio recently that he died in a psychiatric hospital. There will be very few who knew the background.
I wonder if there was any correlation between such abuse and how religious an area was.
Some of the institutional abusers seem similar to the 'Wrath of God' religious types.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
But it was never lawful to make pupils bleed or to leave them seriously bruised for weeks later. The same would have been true of parental correction of children. I have said to them that - with hindsight - they ought to have taken themselves to A & E to be examined by medics. This guy died 17 years ago ,by the way.
Justin, I can’t offer more than I already have. I’m in no doubt you’re telling the truth, but that’s not the same as meeting the standard for prosecution. Unless medical records from the time were available and you imply there aren’t, then that’s not going to be proof of excessive force.
If he’s dead, they would be even less likely to investigate because there couldn’t be a court case. What would they be investigating? In these other cases, alleged co-perpetrators and people who covered up were still alive. Is that the case for your old school?
Edit - I’m assuming even the school doesn’t exist now (I take it it was Haverfordwest Grammar)?
You are correct - it was HGS. I understand the point re-the perpetrator being deceased , though that was also true of Saville and Smith. I believe there have also been cases concerning the Church where Bishops and other members of the clergy have been accused of abuse some time after their demise. Damages have been paid to some victims by the Churches concerned. In the case of school abuse , perhaps LEAs could be required to do something similar.
Pembrokeshire LEA ceased to exist in 1974, Dyfed in 1996.
Again, I’m not clear who you would be going after. If you want catharsis the media might be a better bet than the police.
Then back to Pembrokeshire LEA post Dyfed. I agree that exposure via media is best outcome likely to be possible. That would probably require a police complaint.
My girlfriend is reporting that she is losing her sense of taste. It's not ideal considering I just restarted my immune suppression medication with a mega loading dose today.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
Mrs Foxy has lost most of her sense of smell and taste, it is a pretty distinctive feature of the Covid-19. I am not sure if I have it, it is hard to dodge cooped up in one house.
From our rheumatology clinics (many patients on immunosupression) there don't seem to be particularly severe covid. Indeed there is a body of opinion that those on immunosupressives might be partially protected from the out of control inflammation caused by the virus.
Take care.
That’s interesting. Suggests that our 3 months of shielding due to Wor Lass being on a course of corticosteroids may have been OTT.
Or it may be that our immunosupressed patients were very successful at shielding!
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
Ok, I will try to answer calmly:
First, I was referring to your "How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?" comment. I should have just answered "None".
As for "the government should ban it"... Yes, I hear that from time to time. Often from those on the right, as in "the government should ban... immigration, same-sex marriages, discussion of LGBT issues in schools, women priests, etc. etc."
None ?
Now I'm probably more cynical than your good self but the phrase 'never let a good crisis go to waste' comes to mind.
As does 'you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs'.
People who want change are often happy to see a little bad news if they think it will result in the change they want.
And there are people of all persuasions who want to ban things - how about fox hunting for example ? Or some sort of car usage or house ownership or energy production they don't approve of. Or perhaps people who or things which originate in countries they don't approve of ?
To take something in the news in recent years, how many people support the banning of 'chlorinated chicken'.
There are lots of lots of people who are happy to have a more powerful and authoritarian government.
As long as its 'people like me' in control.
You rarely land in the middle.
You make a polarised mixture of brilliant posts and stupid posts.
I’d venture this is in the “Mansfield is the vision for Britain” category.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Unlikely they would investigate as they would need actual evidence that what was done was clearly outside the bounds of the law at the time, which would be very difficult to establish.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
But if several old boys - now between the ages of 55 and 75 - were to come forward , it would be strong evidence , particularly if they did not know each other and attended the school at different times. Only in that way could the evidence against Saville , Smith and Harris stand up - given that the incidents took place many years in the past.
The point is that unlike Savile et al, an argument might be advanced that what he did was legal at the time. To refute that, I suspect physical evidence of the severity of the beating would be necessary.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
But it was never lawful to make pupils bleed or to leave them seriously bruised for weeks later. The same would have been true of parental correction of children. I have said to them that - with hindsight - they ought to have taken themselves to A & E to be examined by medics. This guy died 17 years ago ,by the way.
Justin, I can’t offer more than I already have. I’m in no doubt you’re telling the truth, but that’s not the same as meeting the standard for prosecution. Unless medical records from the time were available and you imply there aren’t, then that’s not going to be proof of excessive force.
If he’s dead, they would be even less likely to investigate because there couldn’t be a court case. What would they be investigating? In these other cases, alleged co-perpetrators and people who covered up were still alive. Is that the case for your old school?
Edit - I’m assuming even the school doesn’t exist now (I take it it was Haverfordwest Grammar)?
You are correct - it was HGS. I understand the point re-the perpetrator being deceased , though that was also true of Saville and Smith. I believe there have also been cases concerning the Church where Bishops and other members of the clergy have been accused of abuse some time after their demise. Damages have been paid to some victims by the Churches concerned. In the case of school abuse , perhaps LEAs could be required to do something similar.
Pembrokeshire LEA ceased to exist in 1974, Dyfed in 1996.
Again, I’m not clear who you would be going after. If you want catharsis the media might be a better bet than the police.
Then back to Pembrokeshire LEA post Dyfed. I agree that exposure via media is best outcome likely to be possible. That would probably require a police complaint.
There’s no legal continuity between the three. I doubt if they would be held liable for crimes committed on the watch of their predecessors.
It wouldn’t require a police complaint to go to the media. Often, it’s the other way around.
Sorry if that’s not quite the answer you had hoped for, but that is the best advice I can offer.
In other news, I've just finished series 4 of the Crown. I thought it was pretty good and don't understand why everyone is whinging.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
The P5B Saloon was more stately and much beloved of PM's, government ministers and indeed the Queen. However the 3.5 litre Coupe had the lower roof line and gave the old bus a more devilish appearance. Quite fun to drive and plenty of grunt from the Buick V8 engine.
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
Am I misremembering or did Jack W mention that he was looking at buying a Bristol a few years back? Rejected in the end as being too new fangled no doubt.
I was very surprised to learn recently that there is such a thing as a Beaufighter (with 4 wheels, not two and a tailwheel). And that a good friend of mine has two.
And a Blenheim, Beaufort and Bristol Fighter I believe. They were obviously ahead of the curve on Britain's war fetish.
Same company isn't it?
I take @Dura_Ace point on the P6 V8 Rover, the brakes were a nightmare*, but great car to drive. The leather seats and walnut dash were lush , but it also went like stink when working. Ours did have rather dodgy steering, swerving into the opposite carriageway, when hands taken off the wheel. I remember spinning it on the A34 as a result.
*nearly as bad as repairing 2CV brakes which were within the rear axle suspension.
What's the point? The attackers are probably poor parents (this is not a reflection on people in Dundee or Scotland as a whole, more on the kind of people who attack teachers, they have nothing to lose from doing so) or kids. So you spend a fortune in court with nothing to show for it.
Criminal acts could lead to custodial sentences.Why would the police not prosecute?
Because in general, things that happen in school are seen, rightly or wrongly, as disciplinary matters for the school unless they cause significant injury.
It is also surprisingly difficult to get evidence if they don’t as the children who were there will almost always either refuse to say what happened to the police or actively lie to support their classmate.
May I ask your opinion on the issues which have arisen in former years - long before your own time I recognise - when children were victims of violence at the hands of teachers? I attended a very strict Boys Grammar School in Pembrokeshire where the Headmaster clearly had anger management problems and made widespread use of corporal punishment. Some boys were made to bleed whilst others remained severely bruised a month later.I have offered legal advice to some of the victims to the effect that they had been physically abused - rather than punished - and that the Headmaster was vulnerable to a charge of Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences against the Person Act 1861.I have lso suggested that - like Jimmy Saville - Cyril Smith - and Rolf Harris - he could be accused of being a child abuser. I am referring to events of 40 - 60 years ago but believe the point still stands. How would the police respond to any official complaint?I know you are not a lawyer - but might have a view!
Report it to the police. Many of the prep schools in Wales ran similar brutal operations and it's time an example was made of some of the pretty nasty sadists. One boy I knew was caned daily for wetting his bed though it was clear to everyone he had psychological problems. The story happens to be an interesting one because the boy was the son of a menage a trois one of two Mothers a famous person. Sadly none of them wanted him so he didn't even escape during the holidays where he was left in the care of the sadistic headmaster. I heard on the radio recently that he died in a psychiatric hospital. There will be very few who knew the background.
I wonder if there was any correlation between such abuse and how religious an area was.
Some of the institutional abusers seem similar to the 'Wrath of God' religious types.
That wasn't the case in the school I'm talking about. There just happened to be a lot of prep schools in North Wales at the time and they were all pretty similar.
I just find some of the comments on here incredulous. The human misery being caused globally by this virus, including around 400 each day dying from it in the UK over the last few weeks, is unarguable. Those who try to write it off as something that only affects people who are "nearly dead anyway", not much worse than the flu, and something that shouldn't stop us getting on with our normal business are to me, bonkers. Only a fool would think that everybody doing as they please wouldn't results in thousands of extra deaths. The bonkers lot include just a few on here, some scientists/statisticians/medics, the Toby Young/Peter Hitchens types, and a small but significant number of Tory MPs who oppose strict measures because although they may save a few (old) lives they damage the economy. Bonkers, the lot of them. You can argue a bit about the data, but the big picture death toll here and elsewhere is a matter of fact except at the margins.
Sorry, rant over.
If I were being cynical, I'd say those putting wealth before health were more afraid that any economic consequences would be profoundly negative for the Conservatives and might lead to their replacement in Government by Labour.
If the cost of preventing Labour getting into Government was to be the deaths of a few hundred "sick oldies" or "obese slobs" (as someone on here described them), it would be a price well worth paying.
For some, the nightmare is not a virus running wild through the population but the Labour Party in Government.
That of course would be absurdly cynical though, wouldn't it?
It works even better the other way.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
You're the one who's dreaming there.
You really don't think there are people who would like a more powerful state ?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
Ok, I will try to answer calmly:
First, I was referring to your "How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?" comment. I should have just answered "None".
As for "the government should ban it"... Yes, I hear that from time to time. Often from those on the right, as in "the government should ban... immigration, same-sex marriages, discussion of LGBT issues in schools, women priests, etc. etc."
None ?
Now I'm probably more cynical than your good self but the phrase 'never let a good crisis go to waste' comes to mind.
As does 'you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs'.
People who want change are often happy to see a little bad news if they think it will result in the change they want.
And there are people of all persuasions who want to ban things - how about fox hunting for example ? Or some sort of car usage or house ownership or energy production they don't approve of. Or perhaps people who or things which originate in countries they don't approve of ?
To take something in the news in recent years, how many people support the banning of 'chlorinated chicken'.
There are lots of lots of people who are happy to have a more powerful and authoritarian government.
As long as its 'people like me' in control.
You rarely land in the middle.
You make a polarised mixture of brilliant posts and stupid posts.
I’d venture this is in the “Mansfield is the vision for Britain” category.
For clarity, that’s the latter category.
How authoritarian we might be if we did have the power is something we should be grateful we don't get to discover.
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
Am I misremembering or did Jack W mention that he was looking at buying a Bristol a few years back? Rejected in the end as being too new fangled no doubt.
I was very surprised to learn recently that there is such a thing as a Beaufighter (with 4 wheels, not two and a tailwheel). And that a good friend of mine has two.
And a Blenheim, Beaufort and Bristol Fighter I believe. They were obviously ahead of the curve on Britain's war fetish.
Same company isn't it?
I take @Dura_Ace point on the P6 V8 Rover, the brakes were a nightmare*, but great car to drive. The leather seats and walnut dash were lush , but it also went like stink when working. Ours did have rather dodgy steering, swerving into the opposite carriageway, when hands taken off the wheel. I remember spinning it on the A34 as a result.
*nearly as bad as repairing 2CV brakes which were within the rear axle suspension.
...although 2CV rear brakes were hardly critical, surely?
That's how it should be and I think it will inspire confidence in many. I maintain it's a logistically complex process given those involved but nothing that can't be resolved with adequate planning and co-ordination.
The logistics of the temperature-controlled vaccines especially are going to be a nightmare, but there's a lot of planning going into the distribution.
The production has already been scaled-up by the manufacturers, underwritten by governments so millions of doses will be available immediately on approval - there will be nurses with vaccines in care homes within hours.
The problem is they'll have to come back three weeks later to do the second dose so they need to do "everyone" in a particular tranche or cohort (very grown up words) within a 3-week window before they repeat the whole process.
Yes, the logistics are going to go in waves, with the second dose for the first tranche underway as the first doses go to the second tranche in the same area.
I don't think this is going to be that big a deal.
There will be distribution centres. They will have freezers. Once the vaccine is removed from its dry ice packaging, then it can be stored in a regular refreigerator or freezer for five days.
But that's largely irrelevant as there won't be vaccines lying around: they'll open four or five packages from Pfizer every day in large cities. The issue will be getting enough made, not the fact that they are slightly awkward to deal with.
Agreed, it shouldn't be too difficult and we have a load of logistics experts on it.
BTW, did you see my tag from earlier today, a question about the reasons behind UK inventions ending up with US companies?
Face palm....landlady from Bristol on Sky saying if they are going to force pubs / restaurants to close it should be the all in that area, not based on council borders.....
Face palm....landlady from Bristol on Sky saying if they are going to force pubs / restaurants to close it should be the all in that area, not based on council borders.....
I note there was some interesting discussion this morning on classic British cars of the 196070/s. Two of my favourite drives were the Alvis TE21 and the Rover P5B Coupe.
Both somewhat rakish and not at all like Mrs Jack W's husband at all ....
My grandfather had a P5B. I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
Am I misremembering or did Jack W mention that he was looking at buying a Bristol a few years back? Rejected in the end as being too new fangled no doubt.
I was very surprised to learn recently that there is such a thing as a Beaufighter (with 4 wheels, not two and a tailwheel). And that a good friend of mine has two.
And a Blenheim, Beaufort and Bristol Fighter I believe. They were obviously ahead of the curve on Britain's war fetish.
Same company isn't it?
I take @Dura_Ace point on the P6 V8 Rover, the brakes were a nightmare*, but great car to drive. The leather seats and walnut dash were lush , but it also went like stink when working. Ours did have rather dodgy steering, swerving into the opposite carriageway, when hands taken off the wheel. I remember spinning it on the A34 as a result.
*nearly as bad as repairing 2CV brakes which were within the rear axle suspension.
...although 2CV rear brakes were hardly critical, surely?
Driving a 2CV was surprising fun. Top end was 70mph, but once it finally got there you really didn't want to lose that speed, so had to corner on two wheels to keep it, which they did surprisingly well.
Brakes were still needed for the MOT disappointingly.
Comments
BTW, did you see my tag from earlier today, a question about the reasons behind UK inventions ending up with US companies?
lockdowntier 3.https://fullfact.org/health/mail-deaths-chart/
In short, those claiming no excess deaths had to ignore the ONS and instead source a graph created by a conspiracy theorist on Twitter instead.
How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?
For some, the dream is a more powerful, more authoritarian state, a dominant public sector and a Labour party in charge of it.
Doesn’t excuse what happened, but again as with pupils assaulting teachers, the evidence base just ain’t there.
Perhaps you should have considered what you were voting for.
I am not a lawyer, nor was I a teacher in the age of CP, but that’s my instinctive answer. I very much doubt if that case would get very far, and as a result the police would probably not be willing to spend lots of time on it.
Shouldn’t be that way, but...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK_2WcS3oMc
If he’s dead, they would be even less likely to investigate because there couldn’t be a court case. What would they be investigating? In these other cases, alleged co-perpetrators and people who covered up were still alive. Is that the case for your old school?
Edit - I’m assuming even the school doesn’t exist now (I take it it was Haverfordwest Grammar)?
Or a more authoritarian state ?
Or a dominant public sector ?
There are, lots and lots of them and of all political persuasions.
Take a look at how much support there is for nationalising such things as food production and travel agents:
https://insideflyer.co.uk/2017/10/23-brits-want-nationalise-travel-agents/
Or consider how many times you have heard someone say "the government should ban it".
https://twitter.com/Head_stone/status/1331964233697939456
45% believe the state should have the power to control private rents
74% believe the state should have the power to control energy prices
35% believe the state should have the power to control food prices
https://www.cityam.com/there-sadly-mass-support-nationalisation-and-price-controls/
ETA it is this notion of net exposure that also explains how layers can lay lots of big-priced contenders. They only need to cover the biggest loser, because Betfair's computer knows only one can win.
Its that this group doesn't seem to be represented on PB.
I wouldn’t have called it particularly rakish (it was also the car used by Wilson and Heath). Smelled of peppermints, seat leather and pipe tobacco,
The Alvis, though, looks rather fine. The Graber bodied ones even more so.
First, I was referring to your "How many of those wanting lockdowns think the economic damage is a feature not a bug ?" comment. I should have just answered "None".
As for "the government should ban it"... Yes, I hear that from time to time. Often from those on the right, as in "the government should ban... immigration, same-sex marriages, discussion of LGBT issues in schools, women priests, etc. etc."
Pretty much standard.
No one would be happier than the NHS staff when this virus is a tragic memory, and we can resume our original jobs.
Meanwhile CNN have a rather good summary on the Astra Zenaca vaccine problems:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/26/europe/astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-data-concerns-intl/index.html
** Its not really a lockdown is it - a partial shutdown would be a better description - as its significantly different to what applied in April.
Tier 3 lockdown until Christmas and then straight into Brexit gridlock on January 1st.
Even Kent doesn't deserve that.
Luckily I haven't seen her for a number of days. Fingers crossed it isn't COVID though.
https://twitter.com/TheFreds/status/1332037526153027584?s=20
Perhaps it is Nigel Farage chasing his losses/doubling down on his mate?
So I took the lot, obviously.
So infectious it hurts.
Factional a GE doesnt win
From our rheumatology clinics (many patients on immunosupression) there don't seem to be particularly severe covid. Indeed there is a body of opinion that those on immunosupressives might be partially protected from the out of control inflammation caused by the virus.
Take care.
Again, I’m not clear who you would be going after. If you want catharsis the media might be a better bet than the police.
Now I'm probably more cynical than your good self but the phrase 'never let a good crisis go to waste' comes to mind.
As does 'you cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs'.
People who want change are often happy to see a little bad news if they think it will result in the change they want.
And there are people of all persuasions who want to ban things - how about fox hunting for example ? Or some sort of car usage or house ownership or energy production they don't approve of. Or perhaps people who or things which originate in countries they don't approve of ?
To take something in the news in recent years, how many people support the banning of 'chlorinated chicken'.
There are lots of lots of people who are happy to have a more powerful and authoritarian government.
As long as its 'people like me' in control.
Some of the institutional abusers seem similar to the 'Wrath of God' religious types.
You make a polarised mixture of brilliant posts and stupid posts.
I’d venture this is in the “Mansfield is the vision for Britain” category.
For clarity, that’s the latter category.
Did he mean it?
So 60483 more than average on the year
It wouldn’t require a police complaint to go to the media. Often, it’s the other way around.
Sorry if that’s not quite the answer you had hoped for, but that is the best advice I can offer.
Good night.
I thought Thatcher was portrayed in a pretty balanced light - it showed her positive traits and her negative traits.
I also thought Charles was portrayed in a balanced light. Yes they demonstrated his hypocrisy but it also made us feel sorry for him at the same time - that he was also a victim.
The only person who was portrayed as white than white was Princess Di but man the actress was fantastic.
I can see Diana's fashion sense coming back into fashion in the next few years.
A new passport always seems to be the only payoff.
I take @Dura_Ace point on the P6 V8 Rover, the brakes were a nightmare*, but great car to drive. The leather seats and walnut dash were lush , but it also went like stink when working. Ours did have rather dodgy steering, swerving into the opposite carriageway, when hands taken off the wheel. I remember spinning it on the A34 as a result.
*nearly as bad as repairing 2CV brakes which were within the rear axle suspension.
How authoritarian we might be if we did have the power is something we should be grateful we don't get to discover.
https://fullfact.org/health/mail-deaths-chart/
Brakes were still needed for the MOT disappointingly.
Excellent time to revisit this.
The 7-day moving average of deaths for the 18th of November is now 28
Every, single, week the same shitey attempts to deceive.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/clinical-areas/immunology-and-vaccines/gps-can-use-50-64s-flu-jabs-as-covid-vaccination-dry-run-from-designated-sites-next-week/