Most probably a poor deal, eclipsed by the illusion of a last minute brinkmanship "victory" against the odds.
If there's a deal Hardcore Remainers will say it's a poor deal, a cave, a capitulation, a victory for the EU etc. Hardcore Leavers will call it a travesty, an outrage and a surrender.
Mild Leavers will point out the advantages, wins and the freedoms, and what was gained through hard negotiations with the EU - including where they traded. Mild Remainers will say that it's "thin" and unambitious and loses many existing advantages but be grateful there's a deal at all - and will try and build on it in future.
The latter two will get totally crowded out by the noise on social and mainstream media of the former two.
Most people will say ‘thank god for that’ forget about it until something happens to make them think about it. I doubt many people have a clue what’s going to happen, success will be measured by disruption levels trying to segment people into small groups is unreal, we have those that think they know what’s happening and those who don’t (95%) of the population.
Most people just want it over I think. Quite a few are a bit stressed about it.
Some good news regardless of "No Deal" the UK has, I think, now successfully replicated or bettered all its existing trade deals by the 31st December deadline except those for Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Ghana, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Turkey and Serbia. That really is small beer except for Turkey and Mexico.
Deeper deals with New Zealand, Australia, Canada and TTP coming next year (Turkey will just be late) together with others like India, Bangladesh and Mercosur.
It's only the EU, and to a far lesser extent the US, we've had challenges with so far.
It's only with the EU (+EEA) that there will be a qualitative change in governance. Other FTAs are relatively easy to rollover.
Yes, but for a looser deal (in theory) both sides should have little problem in rolling back to it.
The issue with the UK and EU is the politics - it's influencing (heavily) raw trading interests on both sides.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Thanks to TV Presenters who don't think the rules apply to them. 😉
Don't provoke me or you'll get some lacerating Obiter Dicta.
You need to catch up with the times and update your lingo, don't you know what 😉 means?
PS still waiting for some alleged hypocrisy between what I said then and what I am saying now, since there's no change.
The droopy face emoticon? Does it mean having a stroke?
But ok, fair enough, it's still case closed and the sentence is fixed - loss of integrity until at least tomorrow afternoon - but I will put my wig back on and give some clarity for the record.
It's agreed that breaking Rules does not per se spell hypocrite. An aggravating factor is required such as (1) you have been slagging off others for same on TV or (2) you yourself have just created the Rules. (1) catches KB, (2) catches DC. Hypocrites both. Not debatable.
So, if somebody - e.g. YOU - calls out KB as a hypocrite but at the same time refuses to accept that DC is one too, they commit a very grave offence against the cause of reasoned and healthy debate.
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
I wouldn't call East Ham "the Home Counties".
Sadiq Khan is almost pleading for London to stay in Tier 2 - Tier 3 would be very serious for a number of businesses. I suspect it'll be avoided.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Most probably a poor deal, eclipsed by the illusion of a last minute brinkmanship "victory" against the odds.
If there's a deal Hardcore Remainers will say it's a poor deal, a cave, a capitulation, a victory for the EU etc. Hardcore Leavers will call it a travesty, an outrage and a surrender.
Mild Leavers will point out the advantages, wins and the freedoms, and what was gained through hard negotiations with the EU - including where they traded. Mild Remainers will say that it's "thin" and unambitious and loses many existing advantages but be grateful there's a deal at all - and will try and build on it in future.
The latter two will get totally crowded out by the noise on social and mainstream media of the former two.
Most people will say ‘thank god for that’ forget about it until something happens to make them think about it. I doubt many people have a clue what’s going to happen, success will be measured by disruption levels trying to segment people into small groups is unreal, we have those that think they know what’s happening and those who don’t (95%) of the population.
Most people just want it over I think. Quite a few are a bit stressed about it.
Some good news regardless of "No Deal" the UK has, I think, now successfully replicated or bettered all its existing trade deals by the 31st December deadline except those for Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Ghana, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Turkey and Serbia. That really is small beer except for Turkey and Mexico.
Deeper deals with New Zealand, Australia, Canada and TTP coming next year (Turkey will just be late) together with others like India, Bangladesh and Mercosur.
It's only the EU, and to a far lesser extent the US, we've had challenges with so far.
Yes, Liz Truss has fixed our non-EU external trade arrangements which was a really big worry of mine. She's actually been one of the best ministers and so much better than Liam Fox.
Point of order, we won't ever get a free trade deal with Turkey as it sits in a customs union with the EU and is unable to strike independent trade deals. Whatever our eventual free trade deal with the EU will extend to our exports to Turkey but our WTO import tarrifs will always apply to Turkish goods. It's why the customs union deal with the EU is really the worst of all worlds as you essentially cut off 85% of world GDP and trade for exports but don't get use tariffs to protect domestic industries where the EU has tariff elimination trade deals (Canada, Korea, Japan, probably the UK).
I'm actually surprised that Erdogan hasn't taken aim at this situation but I guess Turkey has got huge economic worries so it could end up being a distraction from the unemployment issues.
Liam Fox would probably have set up camp with Giuliani.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
Don’t you feel like the rest of the world could join us if they wanted to, but are like, watching us?
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
Time for Abrams to swing into action again. The funny thing is that once the pandemic is over this probably hurts the GOP because auld white people tend to postal vote.
One day the DUP is going to realise that the Johnson government holds it in total contempt and sees its MPs as nothing more than useful idiots. It would take a heart of stone not to feel a tinge of pity for these Trump-loving fundamentalists. I guess that's what I have.
I dispute the the word useful being needed to describe the DUP. Useless tossers might be more accurate.
I regularly work throughout Northern Ireland. After a very few visits I realised how complex political discourse remains. I suspect Johnson, although undoubtedly a brilliant genius (I read PB) has no idea what makes Northern Ireland tick.
I have learned too that elected officials from SF and the DUP like to get involved in the day to day running of council business. On one occasion in order to win a (very, very minor) council tender, it was suggested to me that a particular high profile nationally recognised political figure "likes an envelope". He didn't get the envelope and I didn't get the contract. Although on that basis alone Johnson's Government should dovetail quite nicely into the cut and thrust of the Province.
Most people just want it over I think. Quite a few are a bit stressed about it.
Some good news regardless of "No Deal" the UK has, I think, now successfully replicated or bettered all its existing trade deals by the 31st December deadline except those for Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Ghana, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Turkey and Serbia. That really is small beer except for Turkey and Mexico.
Deeper deals with New Zealand, Australia, Canada and TTP coming next year (Turkey will just be late) together with others like India, Bangladesh and Mercosur.
It's only the EU, and to a far lesser extent the US, we've had challenges with so far.
The politics of this are working out well enough for the Prime Minister as they would for any politician with just a scintilla of intelligence.
He goes off to Brussels amidst much fanfare tomorrow and one of two things happens:
1) He comes back with a Deal which, irrespective of the actual content, is immediately hailed as a "triumph" by the acolytes in the media and on here. Together with the vaccine, it is portrayed as a "success" for Britain and the launch of a new positive feel-good "don't think about things too much, just have a good time" approach to 2021. By the way, at the elections in May, don't forget to thank the Party and Prime Minister who saved you from the virus.
2) There is no Deal - Boris comes back to the Commons and excoriates the Europeans in the Commons blaming them all for the failure and saying Britain "negotiated in good faith throughout and was wholly reasonable in all its requests". Once again, the truth be damned and his supporters will immediately wheel out generations of anti-European stereotyping and caricatures (French and cheese being a good example). Playing on all sorts of cultural memes, the Prime Minister will wrap himself in the Union Jack and will invoke all sorts of ludicrous wartime hyperbole to mask him and his Government's abject failure. By the way, at the elections in May, don't forget to vote for the Party and Prime Minister who stood up to the duplicitous Europeans.
That's how it is if you have enough powerful unthinking uncritical supporters - heads I win, tails I also win.
Of course the same is true in reverse. Many will be unthinkingly critical no matter what.
I suspect there are more people on this site who will be unthinkingly critical than will be unthinkingly positive - HY may be the only one of the latter on this site.
I anticipate being 'thinkingly critical'.
On past form Johnson will provide plenty of material to push me in that direction - but let's see.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
Don’t you feel like the rest of the world could join us if they wanted to, but are like, watching us?
Nope, everywhere has different regulators. The MHRA are a world centre of excellence when it comes to vaccine analysis and were doing rolling review. Anywhere that has a properly independent regulator needs to follow their procedures. That means some are a bit slower.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
As Sky New’s internal investigation causes angst inside the Osterley campus, a Sky mole gets in contact with Guido to add fuel to the fire; pointing out that not only did Kay’s birthday bash break Tier 2 laws, the broadcaster’s North of England correspondent Inzamam Rashid had to travel down from his Manchester home to attend. A 206 mile journey which would was not by any means essential.
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
Don’t you feel like the rest of the world could join us if they wanted to, but are like, watching us?
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Would you call for the head of a road safety correspondent who was caught speeding? The moralising tone on here is more nauseating than ever.
If you are in public eye, you have to lead by example? Don’t you think damage was done to compliance, not just Cummings but all the flouting of rules rest of us adhering to? Humans identify and react in groups don’t they, like social animals, at cocaine party you end up taking cocaine.
Sky’s pretty tough on discipline, all four will be sacked by 5pm tomorrow
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
They story is they then went and spent several hours inside another venue...the supposed just popped in for a tinkle nonsense....before then going to Kay's house.
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
Don’t you feel like the rest of the world could join us if they wanted to, but are like, watching us?
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Would you call for the head of a road safety correspondent who was caught speeding? The moralising tone on here is more nauseating than ever.
You have a very very short memory. Can you not remember tthe moralising tone arond Cummings? (Who didn't actually commit any offences - just political idiocy....unlike Burley and her colleagues.)
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
The ten of them sat on the roof terrace under the rule of six?
Let me try counting seeing if that is ok. One, two, three, four, ten, six.
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
Don’t you feel like the rest of the world could join us if they wanted to, but are like, watching us?
Nope, everywhere has different regulators. The MHRA are a world centre of excellence when it comes to vaccine analysis and were doing rolling review. Anywhere that has a properly independent regulator needs to follow their procedures. That means some are a bit slower.
But unless the bestest regulator ever had a time machine, they can’t be sure what a mass beta test is going to throw up?
Very worrying Channel 4 news report on Merthyr's Covid cases, where the NHS is at breaking point and close to having to have level 4 (disaster) declared.
And given that the rates have climbed very sharply recently, it is certain to get worse.
The public have given up on social distancing in most of South East and South West Wales. Although mask wearing still pretty good, older 'boyo' type men tend to wear the mask only over the mouth not nose. At least 50% non-participation at Marks in Culverhouse Cross this evening for use of mandatory anti- bacterial gel. On questioning the guard on the door as to why he allowed non-compliance, he replied that when challenged punters are getting quite lairy. (This is Marks, not B and M Bargains!) He said he isn't paid enough to get punched.
It's B & M or Home Bargains. Or was that a deliberate mistake to fool us you don't use them?
I quite like Home Bargains. B and M "Bargains" however is quite a soul destroying shopping experience.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
SE1 says hello.
And, of course, let us not forget Barnesian - the clue is in the name.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
Many moons ago I lived just up the road from you next to Ealing Common. The Grange was a good pub, the Ealing Park Tavern was superb for food. Is that crazy Irish pub opposite Ealing Common station still going strong?
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
Media always rally around one another on stories like this...i suspect because they all know others have been up to the same and all mix in the same circles.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
They story is they then went and spent several hours inside another venue...the supposed just popped in for a tinkle nonsense....before then going to Kay's house.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Would you call for the head of a road safety correspondent who was caught speeding? The moralising tone on here is more nauseating than ever.
If you are in public eye, you have to lead by example? Don’t you think damage was done to compliance, not just Cummings but all the flouting of rules rest of us adhering to? Humans identify and react in groups don’t they, like social animals, at cocaine party you end up taking cocaine.
Sky’s pretty tough on discipline, all four will be sacked by 5pm tomorrow
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Would you call for the head of a road safety correspondent who was caught speeding? The moralising tone on here is more nauseating than ever.
If you are in public eye, you have to lead by example? Don’t you think damage was done to compliance, not just Cummings but all the flouting of rules rest of us adhering to? Humans identify and react in groups don’t they, like social animals, at cocaine party you end up taking cocaine.
Sky’s pretty tough on discipline, all four will be sacked by 5pm tomorrow
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
Many moons ago I lived just up the road from you next to Ealing Common. The Grange was a good pub, the Ealing Park Tavern was superb for good. Is that crazy Irish pub opposite Ealing Common station still going strong?
I also lived in Ealing Common. Moved here around 10 years ago. The Grange is still going, and up to lockdown so was the Irish pub to which you refer. I went there once, which was enough. The pub I used to like was The Common Room, which unfortunately went out of business a couple of years back.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
They story is they then went and spent several hours inside another venue...the supposed just popped in for a tinkle nonsense....before then going to Kay's house.
I mean, who cares?
I care as much about this as I did about Cummings. Non-story.
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
Media always rally around one another on stories like this...i suspect because they all know others have been up to the same and all mix in the same circles.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
Look Burley has broken the rules, so discipline her, fine her if necessary. Calling for the heads of her and all of her colleagues is beyond ridiculous. This forum is ludicrous at times.
Most probably a poor deal, eclipsed by the illusion of a last minute brinkmanship "victory" against the odds.
If there's a deal Hardcore Remainers will say it's a poor deal, a cave, a capitulation, a victory for the EU etc. Hardcore Leavers will call it a travesty, an outrage and a surrender.
Mild Leavers will point out the advantages, wins and the freedoms, and what was gained through hard negotiations with the EU - including where they traded. Mild Remainers will say that it's "thin" and unambitious and loses many existing advantages but be grateful there's a deal at all - and will try and build on it in future.
The latter two will get totally crowded out by the noise on social and mainstream media of the former two.
Most people will say ‘thank god for that’ forget about it until something happens to make them think about it. I doubt many people have a clue what’s going to happen, success will be measured by disruption levels trying to segment people into small groups is unreal, we have those that think they know what’s happening and those who don’t (95%) of the population.
Most people just want it over I think. Quite a few are a bit stressed about it.
Some good news regardless of "No Deal" the UK has, I think, now successfully replicated or bettered all its existing trade deals by the 31st December deadline except those for Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Ghana, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Turkey and Serbia. That really is small beer except for Turkey and Mexico.
Deeper deals with New Zealand, Australia, Canada and TTP coming next year (Turkey will just be late) together with others like India, Bangladesh and Mercosur.
It's only the EU, and to a far lesser extent the US, we've had challenges with so far.
Yes, Liz Truss has fixed our non-EU external trade arrangements which was a really big worry of mine. She's actually been one of the best ministers and so much better than Liam Fox.
Point of order, we won't ever get a free trade deal with Turkey as it sits in a customs union with the EU and is unable to strike independent trade deals. Whatever our eventual free trade deal with the EU will extend to our exports to Turkey but our WTO import tarrifs will always apply to Turkish goods. It's why the customs union deal with the EU is really the worst of all worlds as you essentially cut off 85% of world GDP and trade for exports but don't get use tariffs to protect domestic industries where the EU has tariff elimination trade deals (Canada, Korea, Japan, probably the UK).
I'm actually surprised that Erdogan hasn't taken aim at this situation but I guess Turkey has got huge economic worries so it could end up being a distraction from the unemployment issues.
Liam Fox would probably have set up camp with Giuliani.
He really was so awful. There was and still is so much hard work that needs to be done with non-EU trade and extending all of the existing deals into services NTBs to allow British companies to easily export legal, financial and other services globally. That would massively extend our global reach and soft power, much more than whatever trade deal might be possible with the US.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
Absolutely ridiculous.
Would you call for the head of a road safety correspondent who was caught speeding? The moralising tone on here is more nauseating than ever.
If you are in public eye, you have to lead by example? Don’t you think damage was done to compliance, not just Cummings but all the flouting of rules rest of us adhering to? Humans identify and react in groups don’t they, like social animals, at cocaine party you end up taking cocaine.
Sky’s pretty tough on discipline, all four will be sacked by 5pm tomorrow
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
Media always rally around one another on stories like this...i suspect because they all know others have been up to the same and all mix in the same circles.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
Look Burley has broken the rules, so discipline her, fine her if necessary. Calling for the heads of her and all of her colleagues is beyond ridiculous. This forum is ludicrous at times.
Who is calling for her to go?
IMO it is the lies / nonsense i slipped and fell into breaking the rules that is the bigger problem. I just needed a tinkle, is the testing my eye sight or as professor pantsdown claimed using informed risk assessment to decide to have nookie.
Should just have said i broke the rules, sorry. So should Cummings.
Time for Abrams to swing into action again. The funny thing is that once the pandemic is over this probably hurts the GOP because auld white people tend to postal vote.
I'd be interested to know if there actually is any demonstrable relationship at all between relaxing (or tightening) absentee voting rules and results for each party (particularly in a more "normal" election, global pandemic-wise).
I suspect people basically just vote by the methods available to them. If a person's logic is premised on the notion their opponents' supporters are just fundamentally more dishonest than their own supporters, I can see how tightening rules might be expected to help them. But their premise would simply be wrong - people are people.
There are, I am sure, more effective means of voter suppression if that's the GOP's game. Restricting votes for ex-convicts as in Florida, for example, does as a point of fact affect many more black than white potential voters, and the voting intentions by race speak for themselves.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
Romford counts, doesn't it? Whatever Andrew Rosindell MP would have you think.
(Returning to the subject of Covid numbers, the data for Havering from the ZOE app have behaved really oddly recently. Huge increase in the last week of lockdown (as in the PHE data) but then a huge decrease since the end of lockdown. Seriously huge- halving in about a week.)
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
They story is they then went and spent several hours inside another venue...the supposed just popped in for a tinkle nonsense....before then going to Kay's house.
I mean, who cares?
I care as much about this as I did about Cummings. Non-story.
Cummings was a fundamentally different situation as Burley isn't and never has been responsible for setting the rules.
That was what ground people's gears on Cummings. They'd made a lot of sacrifices (not being with dying relatives, missing funerals, cancelling weddings, suffering severe financial hardship - that sort of jazz) to "protect the NHS and save lives" and then it transpired the c*** who made the rules had flagrantly breached them. It was a tad annoying in a way Kay Burley breaking somewhat less restrictive rules now simply isn't.
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
Media always rally around one another on stories like this...i suspect because they all know others have been up to the same and all mix in the same circles.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
Look Burley has broken the rules, so discipline her, fine her if necessary. Calling for the heads of her and all of her colleagues is beyond ridiculous. This forum is ludicrous at times.
To be honest she has shot herself in the foot and her whole presentation style is one of righteous anger to anyone stepping out of line
I just do not see a way back for her and she only has herself to blame
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
I have now checked and discovered that I didn't know the Tier 2 outdoor rules properly. So they merely bent the rules by being one group of 6 and another group of 4 at nearby tables.
Four back home is a clear break of the rules and more than what cost Prof Fergusson his role.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
I used to be for 4 years. Approaching a decade since I escaped back north.
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
Media always rally around one another on stories like this...i suspect because they all know others have been up to the same and all mix in the same circles.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
Look Burley has broken the rules, so discipline her, fine her if necessary. Calling for the heads of her and all of her colleagues is beyond ridiculous. This forum is ludicrous at times.
To be honest she has shot herself in the foot and her whole presentation style is one of righteous anger to anyone stepping out of line
I just do not see a way back for her and she only has herself to blame
So long as most people don't know about it, she should be fine. But yeah, she does have a holier-than-thou attitude, so it's quite amusing to see her in this predicament.
What might save Burley et al is that it's only the internet that's interested. Yes the BBC has the story, but they're not gunning for her in the way that they would be for a politician.
Media always rally around one another on stories like this...i suspect because they all know others have been up to the same and all mix in the same circles.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
Look Burley has broken the rules, so discipline her, fine her if necessary. Calling for the heads of her and all of her colleagues is beyond ridiculous. This forum is ludicrous at times.
To be honest she has shot herself in the foot and her whole presentation style is one of righteous anger to anyone stepping out of line
I just do not see a way back for her and she only has herself to blame
Didn't do Piers.Moron career any harm...other than Ozil owns him on twitter every time.
There's a difference of opinion between 538 and Cook Report.
538 says every state has now certified results except HI.
Cook says five states have not yet certified - CA, CO, HI, ID, NJ.
I think that may be a difference between states that have certified and states that have reached the deadline to certify. California, for example, certified earlier than required. I may be wrong on that... but if I am then Cook is wrong as Biden crossed the threshold when California certified - it made the news over the weekend.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
They story is they then went and spent several hours inside another venue...the supposed just popped in for a tinkle nonsense....before then going to Kay's house.
I mean, who cares?
I care as much about this as I did about Cummings. Non-story.
Cummings was a fundamentally different situation as Burley isn't and never has been responsible for setting the rules.
That was what ground people's gears on Cummings. They'd made a lot of sacrifices (not being with dying relatives, missing funerals, cancelling weddings, suffering severe financial hardship - that sort of jazz) to "protect the NHS and save lives" and then it transpired the c*** who made the rules had flagrantly breached them. It was a tad annoying in a way Kay Burley breaking somewhat less restrictive rules now simply isn't.
I said at the time Cummings should have gone, both as a point of principle and because of the practical effects he had in undermining the whole Government public health strategy.
I would like to see Burley go because she is a sanctimonious hypocrite who revels in trying to adopt the moral high ground where none is present and because she is, frankly, a bloody awful presenter who lets her own personal views get in the way of the news.
But whilst in the first case I think there are practical and ethical reasons why Cummings should have gone, in the second it is just my personal dislike for Burley which I would be the first to admit is not a valid reason to see her dismissed.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
Yes. I didn’t approve of the Manchester lockdown either as I said repeatedly on here.
London should be placed under the tightest tier 3 coronavirus restrictions in the next 48 hours, a leading public health expert has warned, as data reveals cases are on the rise across much of the capital.
Figures from Public Health England (PHE) have revealed that between 26 November 2020 and 2 December – the last week of lockdown – 15,200 people tested positive in London, equating to a rate of 170 cases per 100,000 population. That is a rise from 156 cases per 100,000the week before, with PHE noting the seven-day case rate for London increased over five consecutive days.
In some parts of London, which is currently in tier 2, the latest figures show the rate was even higher, reaching 299 per 100,000 population in Barking and Dagenham and 319 in Havering, with a total of 20 of the 32 boroughs exceeding the average figure for England of 149 cases per 100,000
Bullshit. London has huge hospital capacity and that's what the whole scare is about supposedly. Even lockdown didn't make much difference in London, the baseline level of activity is simply too high and only a speedy vaccine rollout will have an effect.
Once again the defensive use of limited vaccine quantities on the immobile old means we will have to be in lockdown for significantly longer than if we used it to target likely susperspreaders by vocation/age.
Are the PB Bumpkin London lockdown fetishists going to advocate the cessation of all tube services, bus services and flights?
Are the PB Londoners who never raised any concern about the fate of the north for the last few months going to demand London is treated differently under the same circumstances ?
What PB Londoners? There's only about 3 of us. Mostly a Home Counties crowd on here I think.
AFAIK
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I live in Acton. I think Topping is a fellow Ealing Borough resident.
I used to be for 4 years. Approaching a decade since I escaped back north.
I escaped the north; used to live in Darlington (shudders) among other places.
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I heard someone phone into LBC and say that there is a prison on the Isle of Sheppey and that was responsible for most of the cases in Swale.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I would guess that the only way to really resolve that question would be an in depth study of where the cases are. Are they within specific establishments or populations or are they spread throughout the general population?
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I heard someone phone into LBC and say that there is a prison on the Isle of Sheppey and that was responsible for most of the cases in Swale.
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I heard someone phone into LBC and say that there is a prison on the Isle of Sheppey and that was responsible for most of the cases in Swale.
That makes sense for Swale, which has topped out, and Prison Officers could be coming in from Medway. As a work & living place, you'd say that should be a short, sharp outbreak profile, but it's one of those places where you can't just have all the officers self isolating and no-one looking after people? I wonder how that's been handled.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
I have now checked and discovered that I didn't know the Tier 2 outdoor rules properly. So they merely bent the rules by being one group of 6 and another group of 4 at nearby tables.
Four back home is a clear break of the rules and more than what cost Prof Fergusson his role.
How did they “bend” the rules on an outdoor table? They adhered to them by your account. The after party was a rule-breaker, presuming it was indoors, which given how bloody cold it was on Saturday I expect it was. Unless Burley has heaters in her garden, which I suppose it possible.
None of this alters the fact that you have a very unedifying tendency to the authoritarian when it comes to covid.
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I heard someone phone into LBC and say that there is a prison on the Isle of Sheppey and that was responsible for most of the cases in Swale.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
They story is they then went and spent several hours inside another venue...the supposed just popped in for a tinkle nonsense....before then going to Kay's house.
I mean, who cares?
I care as much about this as I did about Cummings. Non-story.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
I have now checked and discovered that I didn't know the Tier 2 outdoor rules properly. So they merely bent the rules by being one group of 6 and another group of 4 at nearby tables.
Four back home is a clear break of the rules and more than what cost Prof Fergusson his role.
How did they “bend” the rules on an outdoor table? They adhered to them by your account. The after party was a rule-breaker, presuming it was indoors, which given how bloody cold it was on Saturday I expect it was. Unless Burley has heaters in her garden, which I suppose it possible.
None of this alters the fact that you have a very unedifying tendency to the authoritarian when it comes to covid.
Do you never break any laws yourself, ever?
You have to admit that splitting a group of 10 between two tables is a bending of the rules.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Yes that is exactly what France has. If it wants to do something the EU cannot stop it. Just as it could not stop the UK.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
The South East corner is a proper conundrum (to me) and Medway especially so. Most places have long since yielded to lockdown and level 3 and have rapidly falling rates, but after 5 weeks of lockdown then level 3 Medway is still on a 25% increase.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
I heard someone phone into LBC and say that there is a prison on the Isle of Sheppey and that was responsible for most of the cases in Swale.
I made the mistake a few weeks ago of tuning into LBC
They were talking about why there was more C-19 up north than in the civilised south
Apparently northerners were not obeying the rules according to the presenter and majority of (southern) callers.
Doubt that conversation will be repeated next week
I am old enough to remember when it was Leicestershire sweatshops that got the blame, though no one could identify any specific place 🤔
They were more fortunate (or unfortunate?) in Newark. They knew exactly which factory was to blame and had a convenient video to back it up. It was a recording of one of the managers telling the staff that there may be redundancies as a result of Covid and that they would make sure that anyone who took time off to self isolate was at the top of the list for being let go.
I can't believe, even in all their crass incompetence, that the UK government would allow negotiations to continue after christmas, and then leap to the exit, with no further business preparation.
You'd have to imagine the options are some sort of fudged deal this week, or a scenario where the deal is finalised as late as the end of the month, and then even longer is extended and added on for businesses and infrastructure on both sides to prepare.
It means there is going to either be a deal or some form of extension. It could be agreeing no deal at a subsequent date rather than 1 January, but kinabalu is correct, we wont be no dealing on 1 January.
Too many people are off in the xmas-new year week for it to make any sense whatsoever.
If you're going to have no deal then maybe doing that on a day most people are off would be sensible.
Major disruptions like this normally occur during market closures for a reason.
So the week we are ramping up are vaccination efforts for the biggest and most important logistical challenge since the WW2 is a sensible time to create logistical havoc on the country? Get a grip, its just theatre, there is zero chance they will implement no deal now. Very likely we will sign up to whatever we are told to, getting a small win on fish and a future review date to diverge. If not it will be a delayed no deal, with the govt getting out of any political jam with the headbangers by blaming covid and reminding them they will be getting their precious no deal at a later date.
Yes. But it will be enough to convince Philip that we have won and did indeed have all the cards.
Absolutely. He has an unusual absolutist sovereignty view of the world which logically was met with actual Brexit which has already happened. Whatever deal is now made is simply a recognition of Westminster sovereignty so will be a win.
Well yes, unless like May's deal we are bound to implement EU laws without a say in them.
Its a very simple line in the sand for me and "should" be relatively easy to clear. May's deal failed to clear it. Boris's deal should. But I've put my line in the sand out there in advance - the UK should determine UK laws - anything the UK agrees to internationally is still the UK determining it, so long as the UK retains the right to diverge from that in the future and it can't be changed without the UK's consent.
Yes but......Brexit has definitively proven we always had the right to diverge from the EU when we wanted to. It was not necessary to leave in order to find out we could. We simply made a set of agreements with other countries to mutual benefits.
I never said it was necessary to leave the EU though did I?
You continually assert we cannot let other bodies determine UK laws because of sovereignty.
Ultimately the UK can determine its own laws if it really needs to. In an inter connected world it makes sense for countries to pool together sovereignty, on loan if you like, to make trade easier, for defence and to protect the environment.
We will do so whether we are in the EU or not, it is just a matter of degree as to how much sovereignty we pool and loan out, the absolutist sovereignty view you have just doesn't reflect the real world. It is meaningless as the UK is and was sovereign.
This is clearly not the case. If, as a country, laws can be made over which you have no control and which you cannot legally refuse to abide by then, for as long as that remains the case, you are clearly not sovereign.
As long as a veto existed it could reasonably be argued that the nations of Europe were sovereign. Once that veto was removed that situation changed.
That's an extremely rigid and absolutist view of what sovereignty is in today's world. It means France is not iyo a sovereign nation. Most people there would disagree, I'm sure. They'd say that EU membership does not strip them of sovereignty because it is conditional on their democratically elected government considering it to be in their national interest and thus choosing to partake. I think this view is the better one.
Nope you can't just change the meaning of words to suit your own view. To be sovereign as a state is to exercise supreme, permanent authority within one's borders. Now you may feel that that is not necessary, desirable or important but what you can't do is try to claim that it is still sovereignty when clearly it is not.
The idiotic claim made by some on here that we were still sovereign because we could regain that supreme authority by leaving is also garbage. Sovereignty is a state of being not a potential. One can lose sovereignty and then regain it again but as long as another authority is able to make laws within your country over which you have no control or veto then you are not a sovereign state.
Scotland is a good example. They have the potential to leave the UK but no one in their right minds would claim that as long as they remain within the UK that potential alone makes them a sovereign state. It does not.
That's simply a restatement of the same narrow and absolutist view. It means France is not a sovereign nation. An ostensibly absurd conclusion like that requires more than I'm seeing from you - or tbf anyone on here - to support it.
Nope. As I say you may not like the concept of sovereignty, that is entirely your choice, but it is not for you or anyone else to redefine it to pretend it still exists. No France is not Sovereign. Nor is any other country in the EU as long as they can have laws imposed on them against their will. It is kind of fundamental to the basic definition of autonomous supreme authority. I would have far more respect for you if you were to argue that it doesn't matter if a state is sovereign but pretending it is against the basic definition of the term is rather sad.
It most certainly is for me for define and interpret what sovereignty means in a way which makes sense to me in the world I live in. And when my take on it happens to align with how the vast majority of informed and intelligent people understand it, this encourages me to stick with it. You are perfectly free to stick with your narrow/purist (delete to taste) view. I think if you make a sovereign decision to pool some of your sovereignty in a supranational organization (which you can choose to leave at any time) because you consider it in your sovereign national interest, that is NOT to cease to be a sovereign nation. If this view loses me some respect from somebody who has what I consider to be a ladybird book understanding of these matters, I can live with that.
Nope. The only way you can do that is literally by changing the very basic meaning of the word. And as soon as you do that it loses its significance completely. Like I say you can accept that sovereignty doesn't matter if you choose but in no way can you change it when it, by its very definition, deals with absolutes.
For your bizarre argument that France is not a sovereign state by definition to make any sense it would have to be widely understood and accepted. Yet if you look for a list of sovereign states, lo and behold, France is amazingly included.
I would suggest that basic semantics trumps wiki opinion.
But its only in your mind that its basic semantics! In my mind and kinabalus mind it means something different. And the people wiki allow to update their pages agree with us.
Look up the definition of sovereignty and then justify that here on these pages. There is no confusion possible. You are simply wrong.
OED: Supreme power or authority. Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic. Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
Yes that is exactly what France has. If it wants to do something the EU cannot stop it. Just as it could not stop the UK.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
Reconcile that with the ability of an outside body to pass laws applicable to the internal functioning of a state without the state being able to stop them.
So these colleagues Kay B shared a table with. They all live in the same household do they?
Sky need to sack the lot of them.
They sat on the roof terrace of the restaurant where the rule of six applies outdoors. However, I hear that Kay then invited four people back to her house to continue the celebrations, which does breach the rules.
Is that correct? I thought it was rule of 6 in a park but one household either in a pub or restaurant or at an outside table?
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
If she sat on the roof terrace then that is an outside table. So you are advocating her sacking for having a few mates to her house when pissed. Extreme authoritarianism again from you.
I have now checked and discovered that I didn't know the Tier 2 outdoor rules properly. So they merely bent the rules by being one group of 6 and another group of 4 at nearby tables.
Four back home is a clear break of the rules and more than what cost Prof Fergusson his role.
How did they “bend” the rules on an outdoor table? They adhered to them by your account. The after party was a rule-breaker, presuming it was indoors, which given how bloody cold it was on Saturday I expect it was. Unless Burley has heaters in her garden, which I suppose it possible.
None of this alters the fact that you have a very unedifying tendency to the authoritarian when it comes to covid.
Do you never break any laws yourself, ever?
Can't find a link, sorry, but I read a report this morning that people in general have become more judgmental during the pandemic.
Comments
The issue with the UK and EU is the politics - it's influencing (heavily) raw trading interests on both sides.
But ok, fair enough, it's still case closed and the sentence is fixed - loss of integrity until at least tomorrow afternoon - but I will put my wig back on and give some clarity for the record.
It's agreed that breaking Rules does not per se spell hypocrite. An aggravating factor is required such as (1) you have been slagging off others for same on TV or (2) you yourself have just created the Rules. (1) catches KB, (2) catches DC. Hypocrites both. Not debatable.
So, if somebody - e.g. YOU - calls out KB as a hypocrite but at the same time refuses to accept that DC is one too, they commit a very grave offence against the cause of reasoned and healthy debate.
I wouldn't call East Ham "the Home Counties".
Sadiq Khan is almost pleading for London to stay in Tier 2 - Tier 3 would be very serious for a number of businesses. I suspect it'll be avoided.
Not that it impacts us Tier 3 types.
https://twitter.com/RElliotWSB/status/1336392637687984133?s=19
This is pretty important. The Pfizer inoculation is effective after the first jab. Pfizer still expect individuals to need two shots for lasting immunity, but this is really good news because it suggests if you go to ground for a week or two after your first dose you’re likely protected, then the second dose seals it.
There are only me, Max, you and Stodge who live here. Plus one or more of Sean’s alter egos.
I have learned too that elected officials from SF and the DUP like to get involved in the day to day running of council business. On one occasion in order to win a (very, very minor) council tender, it was suggested to me that a particular high profile nationally recognised political figure "likes an envelope". He didn't get the envelope and I didn't get the contract. Although on that basis alone Johnson's Government should dovetail quite nicely into the cut and thrust of the Province.
On past form Johnson will provide plenty of material to push me in that direction - but let's see.
In other news, I see the Brexity folk can't credit Belfast butchers with the ability to knock off a decent Lorne sausage.
Oi!
London.
As Sky New’s internal investigation causes angst inside the Osterley campus, a Sky mole gets in contact with Guido to add fuel to the fire; pointing out that not only did Kay’s birthday bash break Tier 2 laws, the broadcaster’s North of England correspondent Inzamam Rashid had to travel down from his Manchester home to attend. A 206 mile journey which would was not by any means essential.
https://order-order.com/2020/12/08/sky-presenters-cummings-style-tier-3-rule-breach-for-burley-bash/
Sky’s pretty tough on discipline, all four will be sacked by 5pm tomorrow
Let me try counting seeing if that is ok. One, two, three, four, ten, six.
All ok then.
It is why phone hacking was a non-issue until Rupert looked like he might allowed to.merge his media interests....and even then the Mirror got little attention. And was all suddenly a massive shock and outrage, despite Operation Motorman and all the editors having had meeting with the plod to say knock it off.
IMO it is the lies / nonsense i slipped and fell into breaking the rules that is the bigger problem. I just needed a tinkle, is the testing my eye sight or as professor pantsdown claimed using informed risk assessment to decide to have nookie.
Should just have said i broke the rules, sorry. So should Cummings.
I suspect people basically just vote by the methods available to them. If a person's logic is premised on the notion their opponents' supporters are just fundamentally more dishonest than their own supporters, I can see how tightening rules might be expected to help them. But their premise would simply be wrong - people are people.
There are, I am sure, more effective means of voter suppression if that's the GOP's game. Restricting votes for ex-convicts as in Florida, for example, does as a point of fact affect many more black than white potential voters, and the voting intentions by race speak for themselves.
Whatever Andrew Rosindell MP would have you think.
(Returning to the subject of Covid numbers, the data for Havering from the ZOE app have behaved really oddly recently. Huge increase in the last week of lockdown (as in the PHE data) but then a huge decrease since the end of lockdown. Seriously huge- halving in about a week.)
That was what ground people's gears on Cummings. They'd made a lot of sacrifices (not being with dying relatives, missing funerals, cancelling weddings, suffering severe financial hardship - that sort of jazz) to "protect the NHS and save lives" and then it transpired the c*** who made the rules had flagrantly breached them. It was a tad annoying in a way Kay Burley breaking somewhat less restrictive rules now simply isn't.
I just do not see a way back for her and she only has herself to blame
538 says every state has now certified results except HI.
Cook says five states have not yet certified - CA, CO, HI, ID, NJ.
Four back home is a clear break of the rules and more than what cost Prof Fergusson his role.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation
I would like to see Burley go because she is a sanctimonious hypocrite who revels in trying to adopt the moral high ground where none is present and because she is, frankly, a bloody awful presenter who lets her own personal views get in the way of the news.
But whilst in the first case I think there are practical and ethical reasons why Cummings should have gone, in the second it is just my personal dislike for Burley which I would be the first to admit is not a valid reason to see her dismissed.
So, why had what has worked elsewhere not (yet) worked there? And does anything more need to be done?
I have no knowledge, but my guess would be that transmission has set hold on the places not affected by lockdown, whether that's is care homes, hospitals, schools, workplaces whatever. That said these are the kind of outbreak modes that should respond to good local public health measures (cf. Northampton outbreak), so again what is different here? Other parts of Kent are still increasing too.
I guess there is lots of urgent construction for Brexit, that can't be held up, but that is pretty outdoorsy? Has fog, still and cold made outdoors transmission possible?
EDIT: this was the story:
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sheerness/news/new-coronavirus-outbreak-at-jail-237542/
Which was refuted...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-55004033
They were talking about why there was more C-19 up north than in the civilised south
Apparently northerners were not obeying the rules according to the presenter and majority of (southern) callers.
Doubt that conversation will be repeated next week
OED: Supreme power or authority.
Websters: Supreme power especially over a body politic.
Collins: Supreme and independent political authority.
and since you like it so much
Wikipedia: Sovereignty is the full right and power of a governing body over itself, without any interference from outside sources or bodies.
None of this alters the fact that you have a very unedifying tendency to the authoritarian when it comes to covid.
Do you never break any laws yourself, ever?
1) Harry Maguire is the world's most expensive defender
2) What has happened to De Gea? I've never seen a keeper to go from such a peak to a trough.
Do I break the law? Only when I'm driving.
Sovereignty does not grant a country the right to force other countries to allow them into a club.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/coronavirus-outbreak-factory-boss-vowed-22476686
The article mentions 8 cases. Within a few days it was over 70
NEW THREAD
Maybe it was a link on here!
Good evening, everyone.