Listening to the Jenrick talking about the "walking watches" who physically patrol buildings covered in "RapidBurn" cladding. Surely the Tories have missed a trick here. Burney-goodness cladding is cheap and thus profitable for their mates. And walking firewatch patrols sound like the perfect new industry to employ the newly Covid unemployed.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
The bigger tear in my view is levelling the villages.
Absolutely agreed.
The way to get to 'net zero' is to get to sustainable clean alternatives - not to all live in Greenpeace/XR approved mud huts.
Levelling the villages is an issue, but it is an issue for the government to resolve with compulsory purchase orders and the law if need be - not for Greenpeace and XR etc to halt in the courts.
There is a massive unbridgeable gap between your wish list of a free market, technology driven, economic green solution and reality though.
A gap that will become glaringly and catastrophically obvious between now and 2050.
Some insight into the No 10 thinking from Telegrph:
"While Downing Street acknowledges that allowing more household mixing from December 23 to 27 may push up infections, the feeling is it would be even worse to cancel Christmas and face the prospect of a disgruntled public abandoning the rules altogether in the New Year."
Listening to 5 live this morning the consensus seemed to be we will do what we want as it is Christmas
I doubt the politicians can resolve this problem either way and it is time everyone took responsibility for their own safety
Unless you’re Welsh, then it’s all Drakeford’s fault.
Drakeford is responsible for the disaster that is Wales covid response as he insisted one firebreak was all that is needed and opened Wales fully after
Whether or not it's a good idea or not should be moot for the courts, and the Appeal court erred in blocking the will of parliament on this one. It's a question for parliament. I see it as a victory for the correct constitutional order of the UK.
I think its hilarious that Johnson will have to respond to this Heathrow expansion.
As far as I'm aware this was all private money and not state money building it, so I think it should go ahead and disagree with Johnson on this. It should be built and we need to move forwards.
If business no longer want to pay for it because of Covid then that should be there choice too.
I have a feeling that come Jan 21st many senior Republicans are going to start turning on Trump.
They're too afraid too right now and I don't entirely blame them. The bizarre constitutional set up that generates a near 3-month gap from election to inauguration is to blame. It relies on decency but breaks down when you have an as5hole in the White House.
Stripped of office, Trump will no longer look or sound like a person of power. He will still rant and rave but he will come to regret making so many enemies. There's that moment in House of Cards when the big cheese Raymond Tusk suddenly finds himself facing jail ...
We’ll see. I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion at all. It’s just as likely, perhaps more so, that the party remains in thrall to him.
The problem is there are now two GOP parties and one is basically a Trump personality cult. Only one will survive the coming party civil war and I don't think it will be the sane branch.
Maybe a new centre right party will be the medium term solution? There's been mutterings.
The problem in the US is that the voter base for a sane centre right party is smaller than that of a far right populist nationalist party, which is why Trumpism will be hard for the Republican party to destroy through the primary process too. We are probably heading in the same direction here, owing to the same processes - the hollowing out of the middle class and the growing liberalism of what remains of it.
Biden is a sane centre right politician and will be a more popular President than either a Trumpist or a Sanders/Warren type could be. As was Obama. It is not the voter base that is the problem....
That is a large assumption now.
The voter base definitely has a large number of poorly educated people who can be sold random theories via social media. In itself that would not be a problem in terms of electing Presidents if party chiefs appointed candidates without the primary process.
Primaries (and one member one vote here) are more democratic for the party memberships but less democratic and more divisive for the countries they run.
Indeed, but once a significant proportion of the electorate is hooked on conspiracy theories and hatred, expecting them to change that worldview any time soon is ... optimistic.
It's not impossible, but there is simply no Republican leader in sight who might attempt such a process, or possess the capacity to carry it out.
Over the years that I've been following US politics I've watched the GoP transform from the conservative party into the stupid party. As a general rule you can now tell whether somebody is likely to be a Democrat or a Republican by assessing how stupid they are.
This makes it very difficult for a Leader other than a Trump-like snake-oil salesman and populist to emerge and gain traction with the voters.
In 2012, just 8 years ago, Romney was picked as the GOP nominee in the primaries and even won college graduates in the general election over Obama.
Romney still lost. McCain lost. The type of Republicans the left likes. Plucky losers who maintain the fiction the old America is there, somewhere, and might get into power one day.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
The bigger tear in my view is levelling the villages.
Absolutely agreed.
The way to get to 'net zero' is to get to sustainable clean alternatives - not to all live in Greenpeace/XR approved mud huts.
Levelling the villages is an issue, but it is an issue for the government to resolve with compulsory purchase orders and the law if need be - not for Greenpeace and XR etc to halt in the courts.
There is a massive unbridgeable gap between your wish list of a free market, technology driven, economic green solution and reality though.
A gap that will become glaringly and catastrophically obvious between now and 2050.
No there isn't. Science is excellent at finding a solution, so is business.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
The bigger tear in my view is levelling the villages.
Absolutely agreed.
The way to get to 'net zero' is to get to sustainable clean alternatives - not to all live in Greenpeace/XR approved mud huts.
Levelling the villages is an issue, but it is an issue for the government to resolve with compulsory purchase orders and the law if need be - not for Greenpeace and XR etc to halt in the courts.
There is a massive unbridgeable gap between your wish list of a free market, technology driven, economic green solution and reality though.
A gap that will become glaringly and catastrophically obvious between now and 2050.
No there isn't. Science is excellent at finding a solution, so is business.
If that were so these 'solutions' wouldn't need a huge helping hand from the taxpayer and the regulator. We wouldn;t need the Maoist step of banning petrol cars in 2030, for example. We could trust the market and the consumer.
They've definitely picked the wrong argument by focussing on the idea that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th - come Jan 21st the bet will definitely be lost.
I would be using a duty of care argument against their own rules by allowing betting to continue once the prediction was confirmed by all media outlets on the basis that the result was known but it made sense for Betfair not to settle until the certified result.
No, the bet won't be lost on Jan 21st 2021. It was either lost when the Networks announced the result (about Nov 7th, depending on which Networks you focus on) or it is never lost, for the reasons I gave earlier.
The Duty of Care argument is a strong one though. By continuing the market beyond its proper settlement date Betfair induced punters to place bets on an outcome that was already known. I think they could be compelled to reimburse all punters who subsequently placed bets on Trump. Messy, eh?
Even if things don't come to that, they are in any case likely to be in deep shit with the Gambling Commission over their incompetent and irresponsible management of a major betting market.
Oh I know my first argument didn't stand up to any scrutiny - it was there to emphasis how stupid the argument they were using was (it will timeout will before any court got round to hearing the case).
The duty of care one is the killer argument - the market should have been suspended as soon as the last media company confirmed Biden had won.
Agreed.
The Trumpsters have a case. Break my teeth to say it, but they do. As a punter, I want and need fair and regulated markets, even for Trumpsters.
Betfair moved the goalposts and kept the market open long beyond its natural termination point. If they get sued to buggery it will be no more than they deserve.
Can I just ask 2 questions please?
1: When it says they could wait for the official results what does the official result mean to you if not the Electoral College meeting?
2: Do you accept that under American law court cases are a legitimate recognised part of the process facilitated prior to the Electoral College meeting and not like faithless electors?
Philip
1. I don't recall seeing the term 'official result' in the rules, which is why I asked you earlier for a citation. I think the phrase appeared, along with other possible benchmarks, in subsequent PR statements. Had it appeared in the market rules I would have expected the term to be defined. In the absence of such a definition I would have probably sought clarification, or assumed they meant 'certification'. But I don't think it was in the rules, so it isn't really relevant.
2. You have to draw a clear distinction between betting rules on the one hand, and subsequent court proceedings and the like on the other hand. Once the terms of the betting rules are met, the market is settled. What happens next can of course be subject to the law of the land, whether in the US or elsewhere. If you do not maintain this distinction you are likely to go mad. No bet could ever be settled finally or with certainty. If for some perverse reason a market-maker wanted to include court and other processes in the market rules they could do so, but it would be bonkers, which is presumably why you never see it. The distinction between market rules as stated by the market-maker and civil procedures such as court action is fundamental and most people have no difficulty seeing and understanding it. You do not, and I think that is where your problem lies.
"White privilege" is simply that white people (especially white, straight, men) face less barriers and obstacles in life and society, on the whole. This is due to a whole manner of historical reasons.
That doesn't mean that white people don't suffer or that white people don't earn their success. It also doesn't mean that the struggles of the white working class, for example, are any less meaningful.
There's nothing "woke" about it as a concept and it annoys me when Twitter idiots turn it into a whole lifestyle.
There is no one who is not aware of the Covid risks. Whether they be 20 or 80. Hence we should be trusted to do what we believe we want to or think right. For some that will be seeing their 80-yr old parents; for some that will not be seeing their 80-yr old parents.
I don't think anyone will go directly from a knees-up at Spoons to their 80-yr old parents.
I think given the risk profile it is mostly for the 80-yr old parents to decide ultimately. For some of those, Christmas and seeing family is a hugely important part of their lives in a pretty miserable year, perhaps enough for it to be a significant factor in their mental health wellbeing; for others they will not mind waiting a few more months to see the family.
I guess the question is whether Covid is a seat belts (protect the people in your car) or a drink driving (protect everyone on the road) kind of situation. I would say that it's more like the latter so the government absolutely should be able to tell people what to do. I think this whole "let's keep Christmas going" thing is horseshit, especially when the government was happy to shut down Eid with a few hours' notice. They've had plenty of time to see that their approach will lead to people dying unnecessarily and should have the guts to tell people that the situation has changed.
Does a political/constitutional expert/lawyer know - trade deals that Truss has signed eg with Canada, Japan etc . . . are they ratified by Parliament? If so is that eg by a Statutory Instrument or similar?
Is there any reason why the site keeps crashing on my iPad? Sometimes I can't load any comments - very frustrating
My Macbook is even starting to struggle with it. I'm getting consistent "this page is using significant memory" messages.
That isn't the site. That's the Apple Upgrade System telling you to buy a nice new one for Christmas. And whilst you're at it why not buy "Air Pods Max" (formerly known as "headphones") to go with it?
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
Is there any reason why the site keeps crashing on my iPad? Sometimes I can't load any comments - very frustrating
My Macbook is even starting to struggle with it. I'm getting consistent "this page is using significant memory" messages.
That isn't the site. That's the Apple Upgrade System telling you to buy a nice new one for Christmas. And whilst you're at it why not buy "Air Pods Max" (formerly known as "headphones") to go with it?
Nah, it isn't. No other website gives me a problem.
I have a feeling that come Jan 21st many senior Republicans are going to start turning on Trump.
They're too afraid too right now and I don't entirely blame them. The bizarre constitutional set up that generates a near 3-month gap from election to inauguration is to blame. It relies on decency but breaks down when you have an as5hole in the White House.
Stripped of office, Trump will no longer look or sound like a person of power. He will still rant and rave but he will come to regret making so many enemies. There's that moment in House of Cards when the big cheese Raymond Tusk suddenly finds himself facing jail ...
We’ll see. I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion at all. It’s just as likely, perhaps more so, that the party remains in thrall to him.
The problem is there are now two GOP parties and one is basically a Trump personality cult. Only one will survive the coming party civil war and I don't think it will be the sane branch.
Maybe a new centre right party will be the medium term solution? There's been mutterings.
The problem in the US is that the voter base for a sane centre right party is smaller than that of a far right populist nationalist party, which is why Trumpism will be hard for the Republican party to destroy through the primary process too. We are probably heading in the same direction here, owing to the same processes - the hollowing out of the middle class and the growing liberalism of what remains of it.
Biden is a sane centre right politician and will be a more popular President than either a Trumpist or a Sanders/Warren type could be. As was Obama. It is not the voter base that is the problem....
That is a large assumption now.
The voter base definitely has a large number of poorly educated people who can be sold random theories via social media. In itself that would not be a problem in terms of electing Presidents if party chiefs appointed candidates without the primary process.
Primaries (and one member one vote here) are more democratic for the party memberships but less democratic and more divisive for the countries they run.
Indeed, but once a significant proportion of the electorate is hooked on conspiracy theories and hatred, expecting them to change that worldview any time soon is ... optimistic.
It's not impossible, but there is simply no Republican leader in sight who might attempt such a process, or possess the capacity to carry it out.
Over the years that I've been following US politics I've watched the GoP transform from the conservative party into the stupid party. As a general rule you can now tell whether somebody is likely to be a Democrat or a Republican by assessing how stupid they are.
This makes it very difficult for a Leader other than a Trump-like snake-oil salesman and populist to emerge and gain traction with the voters.
In 2012, just 8 years ago, Romney was picked as the GOP nominee in the primaries and even won college graduates in the general election over Obama.
Romney still lost. McCain lost. The type of Republicans the left likes. Plucky losers who maintain the fiction the old America is there, somewhere, and might get into power one day.
I have a feeling that come Jan 21st many senior Republicans are going to start turning on Trump.
They're too afraid too right now and I don't entirely blame them. The bizarre constitutional set up that generates a near 3-month gap from election to inauguration is to blame. It relies on decency but breaks down when you have an as5hole in the White House.
Stripped of office, Trump will no longer look or sound like a person of power. He will still rant and rave but he will come to regret making so many enemies. There's that moment in House of Cards when the big cheese Raymond Tusk suddenly finds himself facing jail ...
We’ll see. I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion at all. It’s just as likely, perhaps more so, that the party remains in thrall to him.
The problem is there are now two GOP parties and one is basically a Trump personality cult. Only one will survive the coming party civil war and I don't think it will be the sane branch.
Maybe a new centre right party will be the medium term solution? There's been mutterings.
The problem in the US is that the voter base for a sane centre right party is smaller than that of a far right populist nationalist party, which is why Trumpism will be hard for the Republican party to destroy through the primary process too. We are probably heading in the same direction here, owing to the same processes - the hollowing out of the middle class and the growing liberalism of what remains of it.
Biden is a sane centre right politician and will be a more popular President than either a Trumpist or a Sanders/Warren type could be. As was Obama. It is not the voter base that is the problem....
That is a large assumption now.
The voter base definitely has a large number of poorly educated people who can be sold random theories via social media. In itself that would not be a problem in terms of electing Presidents if party chiefs appointed candidates without the primary process.
Primaries (and one member one vote here) are more democratic for the party memberships but less democratic and more divisive for the countries they run.
Indeed, but once a significant proportion of the electorate is hooked on conspiracy theories and hatred, expecting them to change that worldview any time soon is ... optimistic.
It's not impossible, but there is simply no Republican leader in sight who might attempt such a process, or possess the capacity to carry it out.
Over the years that I've been following US politics I've watched the GoP transform from the conservative party into the stupid party. As a general rule you can now tell whether somebody is likely to be a Democrat or a Republican by assessing how stupid they are.
This makes it very difficult for a Leader other than a Trump-like snake-oil salesman and populist to emerge and gain traction with the voters.
In 2012, just 8 years ago, Romney was picked as the GOP nominee in the primaries and even won college graduates in the general election over Obama.
Romney still lost. McCain lost. The type of Republicans the left likes. Plucky losers who maintain the fiction the old America is there, somewhere, and might get into power one day.
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
They've definitely picked the wrong argument by focussing on the idea that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th - come Jan 21st the bet will definitely be lost.
I would be using a duty of care argument against their own rules by allowing betting to continue once the prediction was confirmed by all media outlets on the basis that the result was known but it made sense for Betfair not to settle until the certified result.
No, the bet won't be lost on Jan 21st 2021. It was either lost when the Networks announced the result (about Nov 7th, depending on which Networks you focus on) or it is never lost, for the reasons I gave earlier.
The Duty of Care argument is a strong one though. By continuing the market beyond its proper settlement date Betfair induced punters to place bets on an outcome that was already known. I think they could be compelled to reimburse all punters who subsequently placed bets on Trump. Messy, eh?
Even if things don't come to that, they are in any case likely to be in deep shit with the Gambling Commission over their incompetent and irresponsible management of a major betting market.
Oh I know my first argument didn't stand up to any scrutiny - it was there to emphasis how stupid the argument they were using was (it will timeout will before any court got round to hearing the case).
The duty of care one is the killer argument - the market should have been suspended as soon as the last media company confirmed Biden had won.
Agreed.
The Trumpsters have a case. Break my teeth to say it, but they do. As a punter, I want and need fair and regulated markets, even for Trumpsters.
Betfair moved the goalposts and kept the market open long beyond its natural termination point. If they get sued to buggery it will be no more than they deserve.
Can I just ask 2 questions please?
1: When it says they could wait for the official results what does the official result mean to you if not the Electoral College meeting?
2: Do you accept that under American law court cases are a legitimate recognised part of the process facilitated prior to the Electoral College meeting and not like faithless electors?
Philip
1. I don't recall seeing the term 'official result' in the rules, which is why I asked you earlier for a citation. I think the phrase appeared, along with other possible benchmarks, in subsequent PR statements. Had it appeared in the market rules I would have expected the term to be defined. In the absence of such a definition I would have probably sought clarification, or assumed they meant 'certification'. But I don't think it was in the rules, so it isn't really relevant.
2. You have to draw a clear distinction between betting rules on the one hand, and subsequent court proceedings and the like on the other hand. Once the terms of the betting rules are met, the market is settled. What happens next can of course be subject to the law of the land, whether in the US or elsewhere. If you do not maintain this distinction you are likely to go mad. No bet could ever be settled finally or with certainty. If for some perverse reason a market-maker wanted to include court and other processes in the market rules they could do so, but it would be bonkers, which is presumably why you never see it. The distinction between market rules as stated by the market-maker and civil procedures such as court action is fundamental and most people have no difficulty seeing and understanding it. You do not, and I think that is where your problem lies.
1. I don't have the rules to hand and Betfair don't seem to be showing them now that the market has been settled but the official results line was there all along - people just tended to ignore it because of concentrating on the projected word and ignoring everything else that went with it. It was always there, we discussed this last time.
2. There is a certainty and finality date though - Monday was it. All recounts, court cases etc need to happen prior to the Electoral College meeting which is when the results get changed from projected to official (and subsequent events like faithless electors get disregarded under the rules). Prior to Monday the projected results were not official yet, as of Monday they were.
You think the terms of the rules were met on the 7th when CNN made a projection. I honestly read it as the terms of the rules were met on Monday when the projection became official. Betfair agrees with me it seems. They always said they could wait for it to be official.
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
The GSK/Sanofi vaccine is different to the Oxford/AZ vaccine, right?
They've definitely picked the wrong argument by focussing on the idea that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th - come Jan 21st the bet will definitely be lost.
I would be using a duty of care argument against their own rules by allowing betting to continue once the prediction was confirmed by all media outlets on the basis that the result was known but it made sense for Betfair not to settle until the certified result.
No, the bet won't be lost on Jan 21st 2021. It was either lost when the Networks announced the result (about Nov 7th, depending on which Networks you focus on) or it is never lost, for the reasons I gave earlier.
The Duty of Care argument is a strong one though. By continuing the market beyond its proper settlement date Betfair induced punters to place bets on an outcome that was already known. I think they could be compelled to reimburse all punters who subsequently placed bets on Trump. Messy, eh?
Even if things don't come to that, they are in any case likely to be in deep shit with the Gambling Commission over their incompetent and irresponsible management of a major betting market.
Oh I know my first argument didn't stand up to any scrutiny - it was there to emphasis how stupid the argument they were using was (it will timeout will before any court got round to hearing the case).
The duty of care one is the killer argument - the market should have been suspended as soon as the last media company confirmed Biden had won.
Agreed.
The Trumpsters have a case. Break my teeth to say it, but they do. As a punter, I want and need fair and regulated markets, even for Trumpsters.
Betfair moved the goalposts and kept the market open long beyond its natural termination point. If they get sued to buggery it will be no more than they deserve.
The implication of Betfair keeping the market open is that they would have paid out on a Trump win, had he successfully stolen the election. And I guess that rather disturbing thought will be the foundation for their defence to any such case.
Hmmm....maybe, but they would then undoubtedly have faced action from those of us who wanted the market settled in accordance with the rules, as originally stated by Betfair.
As it is, I think they have a problem but it is their's, not mine.
I have a feeling that come Jan 21st many senior Republicans are going to start turning on Trump.
They're too afraid too right now and I don't entirely blame them. The bizarre constitutional set up that generates a near 3-month gap from election to inauguration is to blame. It relies on decency but breaks down when you have an as5hole in the White House.
Stripped of office, Trump will no longer look or sound like a person of power. He will still rant and rave but he will come to regret making so many enemies. There's that moment in House of Cards when the big cheese Raymond Tusk suddenly finds himself facing jail ...
We’ll see. I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion at all. It’s just as likely, perhaps more so, that the party remains in thrall to him.
The problem is there are now two GOP parties and one is basically a Trump personality cult. Only one will survive the coming party civil war and I don't think it will be the sane branch.
Maybe a new centre right party will be the medium term solution? There's been mutterings.
The problem in the US is that the voter base for a sane centre right party is smaller than that of a far right populist nationalist party, which is why Trumpism will be hard for the Republican party to destroy through the primary process too. We are probably heading in the same direction here, owing to the same processes - the hollowing out of the middle class and the growing liberalism of what remains of it.
Biden is a sane centre right politician and will be a more popular President than either a Trumpist or a Sanders/Warren type could be. As was Obama. It is not the voter base that is the problem....
That is a large assumption now.
The voter base definitely has a large number of poorly educated people who can be sold random theories via social media. In itself that would not be a problem in terms of electing Presidents if party chiefs appointed candidates without the primary process.
Primaries (and one member one vote here) are more democratic for the party memberships but less democratic and more divisive for the countries they run.
Indeed, but once a significant proportion of the electorate is hooked on conspiracy theories and hatred, expecting them to change that worldview any time soon is ... optimistic.
It's not impossible, but there is simply no Republican leader in sight who might attempt such a process, or possess the capacity to carry it out.
Over the years that I've been following US politics I've watched the GoP transform from the conservative party into the stupid party. As a general rule you can now tell whether somebody is likely to be a Democrat or a Republican by assessing how stupid they are.
This makes it very difficult for a Leader other than a Trump-like snake-oil salesman and populist to emerge and gain traction with the voters.
In 2012, just 8 years ago, Romney was picked as the GOP nominee in the primaries and even won college graduates in the general election over Obama.
Romney still lost. McCain lost. The type of Republicans the left likes. Plucky losers who maintain the fiction the old America is there, somewhere, and might get into power one day.
What is the "old" America in this context?
What's the mental picture?
Bedford Falls. Trump is more of a Pottersville kind of guy.
They've definitely picked the wrong argument by focussing on the idea that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th - come Jan 21st the bet will definitely be lost.
I would be using a duty of care argument against their own rules by allowing betting to continue once the prediction was confirmed by all media outlets on the basis that the result was known but it made sense for Betfair not to settle until the certified result.
No, the bet won't be lost on Jan 21st 2021. It was either lost when the Networks announced the result (about Nov 7th, depending on which Networks you focus on) or it is never lost, for the reasons I gave earlier.
The Duty of Care argument is a strong one though. By continuing the market beyond its proper settlement date Betfair induced punters to place bets on an outcome that was already known. I think they could be compelled to reimburse all punters who subsequently placed bets on Trump. Messy, eh?
Even if things don't come to that, they are in any case likely to be in deep shit with the Gambling Commission over their incompetent and irresponsible management of a major betting market.
Oh I know my first argument didn't stand up to any scrutiny - it was there to emphasis how stupid the argument they were using was (it will timeout will before any court got round to hearing the case).
The duty of care one is the killer argument - the market should have been suspended as soon as the last media company confirmed Biden had won.
Agreed.
The Trumpsters have a case. Break my teeth to say it, but they do. As a punter, I want and need fair and regulated markets, even for Trumpsters.
Betfair moved the goalposts and kept the market open long beyond its natural termination point. If they get sued to buggery it will be no more than they deserve.
The implication of Betfair keeping the market open is that they would have paid out on a Trump win, had he successfully stolen the election. And I guess that rather disturbing thought will be the foundation for their defence to any such case.
Hmmm....maybe, but they would then undoubtedly have faced action from those of us who wanted the market settled in accordance with the rules, as originally stated by Betfair.
As it is, I think they have a problem but it is their's, not mine.
But under the original rules Trump would have been the winner. He would have been the projected winner when the results became official.
Incorrect or overturned projections are not winners. The networks called Florida 2000 for Gore then switched it to TCTC then switched it to Bush. Did Betfair pay out for Gore? No, of course not.
The only results that matter are the official results. The official results are the state of play when the Electoral College meets.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
And that highlights the issue with techno-libertarian-utopianism. Science can do remarkable things; hell, that's one of the important stories of this year. But there are some underlying parameters where it's difficult to see what can be done, no matter how clever or numerous the boffins or how great the economic rewards.
To give a real example from materials science, nobody has come up with a useful material with a substantially better combination of stiffness and lightness than wood.
To give another example which I hope is true; back when the Military-Industrial Complex was a thing, Richard Feynman went to some sort of meeting with US Army highups. It's said that a general went up to the professor and told him that what the Army really, really needed was a tank that could be fuelled by sand.
Listening to the Jenrick talking about the "walking watches" who physically patrol buildings covered in "RapidBurn" cladding. Surely the Tories have missed a trick here. Burney-goodness cladding is cheap and thus profitable for their mates. And walking firewatch patrols sound like the perfect new industry to employ the newly Covid unemployed.
I have to say that this article took me aback, as i had not been following the inquiry from day to day.
They've definitely picked the wrong argument by focussing on the idea that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th - come Jan 21st the bet will definitely be lost.
I would be using a duty of care argument against their own rules by allowing betting to continue once the prediction was confirmed by all media outlets on the basis that the result was known but it made sense for Betfair not to settle until the certified result.
No, the bet won't be lost on Jan 21st 2021. It was either lost when the Networks announced the result (about Nov 7th, depending on which Networks you focus on) or it is never lost, for the reasons I gave earlier.
The Duty of Care argument is a strong one though. By continuing the market beyond its proper settlement date Betfair induced punters to place bets on an outcome that was already known. I think they could be compelled to reimburse all punters who subsequently placed bets on Trump. Messy, eh?
Even if things don't come to that, they are in any case likely to be in deep shit with the Gambling Commission over their incompetent and irresponsible management of a major betting market.
Oh I know my first argument didn't stand up to any scrutiny - it was there to emphasis how stupid the argument they were using was (it will timeout will before any court got round to hearing the case).
The duty of care one is the killer argument - the market should have been suspended as soon as the last media company confirmed Biden had won.
Agreed.
The Trumpsters have a case. Break my teeth to say it, but they do. As a punter, I want and need fair and regulated markets, even for Trumpsters.
Betfair moved the goalposts and kept the market open long beyond its natural termination point. If they get sued to buggery it will be no more than they deserve.
The implication of Betfair keeping the market open is that they would have paid out on a Trump win, had he successfully stolen the election. And I guess that rather disturbing thought will be the foundation for their defence to any such case.
Hmmm....maybe, but they would then undoubtedly have faced action from those of us who wanted the market settled in accordance with the rules, as originally stated by Betfair.
As it is, I think they have a problem but it is their's, not mine.
But under the original rules Trump would have been the winner. He would have been the projected winner when the results became official.
Incorrect or overturned projections are not winners. The networks called Florida 2000 for Gore then switched it to TCTC then switched it to Bush. Did Betfair pay out for Gore? No, of course not.
The only results that matter are the official results. The official results are the state of play when the Electoral College meets.
Your rules are a lot clearer than Betfair's, Philip! Have you thought of asking them for a job?
Unfortunately you have made them up, as they did after the event.
Now I'm afraid I've had enough of explaining why water is wet and wish to get on with other things.
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
The GSK/Sanofi vaccine is different to the Oxford/AZ vaccine, right?
Yes, but my point is - perhaps not clearly expressed (sorry) is that ALL the vaccines seem to show a stronger response in younger adults & Oxford/Az DID show a sig immune response in older adults. It's just it likely works even better in younger adults.
As will all of the vaccines thus far and likely all of the vaccines being developed. If we're aiming for herd immunity (Which we should be) rolling out the super strong pfizer vaccine to older adults whilst at the same time giving Oxford to younger adults would be a sensible path forward.
I have a feeling that come Jan 21st many senior Republicans are going to start turning on Trump.
They're too afraid too right now and I don't entirely blame them. The bizarre constitutional set up that generates a near 3-month gap from election to inauguration is to blame. It relies on decency but breaks down when you have an as5hole in the White House.
Stripped of office, Trump will no longer look or sound like a person of power. He will still rant and rave but he will come to regret making so many enemies. There's that moment in House of Cards when the big cheese Raymond Tusk suddenly finds himself facing jail ...
We’ll see. I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion at all. It’s just as likely, perhaps more so, that the party remains in thrall to him.
The problem is there are now two GOP parties and one is basically a Trump personality cult. Only one will survive the coming party civil war and I don't think it will be the sane branch.
Maybe a new centre right party will be the medium term solution? There's been mutterings.
The problem in the US is that the voter base for a sane centre right party is smaller than that of a far right populist nationalist party, which is why Trumpism will be hard for the Republican party to destroy through the primary process too. We are probably heading in the same direction here, owing to the same processes - the hollowing out of the middle class and the growing liberalism of what remains of it.
Biden is a sane centre right politician and will be a more popular President than either a Trumpist or a Sanders/Warren type could be. As was Obama. It is not the voter base that is the problem....
That is a large assumption now.
The voter base definitely has a large number of poorly educated people who can be sold random theories via social media. In itself that would not be a problem in terms of electing Presidents if party chiefs appointed candidates without the primary process.
Primaries (and one member one vote here) are more democratic for the party memberships but less democratic and more divisive for the countries they run.
Indeed, but once a significant proportion of the electorate is hooked on conspiracy theories and hatred, expecting them to change that worldview any time soon is ... optimistic.
It's not impossible, but there is simply no Republican leader in sight who might attempt such a process, or possess the capacity to carry it out.
Over the years that I've been following US politics I've watched the GoP transform from the conservative party into the stupid party. As a general rule you can now tell whether somebody is likely to be a Democrat or a Republican by assessing how stupid they are.
This makes it very difficult for a Leader other than a Trump-like snake-oil salesman and populist to emerge and gain traction with the voters.
In 2012, just 8 years ago, Romney was picked as the GOP nominee in the primaries and even won college graduates in the general election over Obama.
Romney still lost. McCain lost. The type of Republicans the left likes. Plucky losers who maintain the fiction the old America is there, somewhere, and might get into power one day.
McCain lost because the US economy was in a deep hole at the end of George W Bush's administration and Americans weren't in the mood to elect another Republican, however impressive. And, of course, he was facing a once-in-a-generation game-changer like Obama. And Romney lost because it is usually difficult to defeat a one-term President seeking re-election if he's any good which Obama was and Trump isn't.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
Hydrogen makes the most sense, but I can imagine the pressurised storage will be an issue.
I heard from my octogenarian step-mother that she is due to be vaccinated on Friday in a fairly small Devon town, so things seem to be moving ahead quite well.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
The bigger tear in my view is levelling the villages.
Absolutely agreed.
The way to get to 'net zero' is to get to sustainable clean alternatives - not to all live in Greenpeace/XR approved mud huts.
Levelling the villages is an issue, but it is an issue for the government to resolve with compulsory purchase orders and the law if need be - not for Greenpeace and XR etc to halt in the courts.
There is a massive unbridgeable gap between your wish list of a free market, technology driven, economic green solution and reality though.
A gap that will become glaringly and catastrophically obvious between now and 2050.
No there isn't. Science is excellent at finding a solution, so is business.
If that were so these 'solutions' wouldn't need a huge helping hand from the taxpayer and the regulator. We wouldn;t need the Maoist step of banning petrol cars in 2030, for example. We could trust the market and the consumer.
We don't live in a perfectly capitalist society, never have done, so under our principles of reality the government can nudge the market in the right direction. Set a goal (no petrol vehicles) and then let the market find the solution - rather than the state choosing the solution or model of car for the market. The market and consumers then pick solutions that work to meet that goal.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
And that highlights the issue with techno-libertarian-utopianism. Science can do remarkable things; hell, that's one of the important stories of this year. But there are some underlying parameters where it's difficult to see what can be done, no matter how clever or numerous the boffins or how great the economic rewards.
To give a real example from materials science, nobody has come up with a useful material with a substantially better combination of stiffness and lightness than wood.
To give another example which I hope is true; back when the Military-Industrial Complex was a thing, Richard Feynman went to some sort of meeting with US Army highups. It's said that a general went up to the professor and told him that what the Army really, really needed was a tank that could be fuelled by sand.
The vast majority of carbon emissions associated with an airport are not associated with the planes. They are associated with everyone - that is, passengers, staff, emergency services - getting to and from the airport.
Even at well-provided for airports, people generally drive or get a taxi owing to their luggage.
So con: electric plans are not the answer; pro: CO2 efficient vehicles are. Or a further shift in public transport usage.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
No one's going to use hydrogen, I suspect. If we have the tech to produce that economically from renewable electric, then synfuel will be just about as easy. And way easier from the point of practical use.
Electric is quite likely to be used in short haul, though, with quite large advantages in maintenance costs. And Li/S batteries offer a possible order of magnitude improvement in energy/kg on what we have now - though that's probably a decade off.
It's like self identifying with gender, except that with race, somebody else identifies you, and you have have to fit in with their decision.
You know what: I believe that white people are - on average - more privileged than people of colour. I believe that - on average - men are more privileged than women, that the straight are more privileged than the gay, and that the able bodied are more privileged than the disabled.
But you know what else I know: that those with parents who give a shit about education are privileged; that those with parents that stay together are privileged, that those born in the UK are privileged; that those who came into being in the late 20th Century are privileged, and should I go on?
Privilege is ultimately individual. One cannot simply look at a single measure and say that person is privileged. Indeed, when you do so, and you say that to a white person living in poverty in Appalachia with a father that left long ago and a mother addicted to opioids, you know what you're going to get: insurrection and violence. You can't look at them and say they're privileged, because compared to the average American, they're not.
It's time to start thinking of people as individuals and recognise their own struggles, rather than chucking them in some big bucket and saying "lo, you are the bucket."
Superb post.
And quite extraordinary given the left of the party he applauds into government in America, soon to be in full control, are diametrically opposed to this view.
Hashtag reparations
I am an optimist. This current bullshit will be expunged, and we will get to the sensible equilibrium Robert describes, but it might many years to get there - with much social and political damage done first.
That's why it's important for moderate people to speak out against it, and use the right language to do so.
Best of luck with that. The 80 million Americans who were so....erm....inspired by Biden's...uh... vision and drive are going to be disappointed soon.
Harris and a triple Majority. Changing America for ever. Ooh..er....
An awful lot of them were not voting for Biden, they were voting against Trump. As long as he is not longer in the White House they will be satisfied.
They've definitely picked the wrong argument by focussing on the idea that Trump will be inaugurated on January 20th - come Jan 21st the bet will definitely be lost.
I would be using a duty of care argument against their own rules by allowing betting to continue once the prediction was confirmed by all media outlets on the basis that the result was known but it made sense for Betfair not to settle until the certified result.
No, the bet won't be lost on Jan 21st 2021. It was either lost when the Networks announced the result (about Nov 7th, depending on which Networks you focus on) or it is never lost, for the reasons I gave earlier.
The Duty of Care argument is a strong one though. By continuing the market beyond its proper settlement date Betfair induced punters to place bets on an outcome that was already known. I think they could be compelled to reimburse all punters who subsequently placed bets on Trump. Messy, eh?
Even if things don't come to that, they are in any case likely to be in deep shit with the Gambling Commission over their incompetent and irresponsible management of a major betting market.
Oh I know my first argument didn't stand up to any scrutiny - it was there to emphasis how stupid the argument they were using was (it will timeout will before any court got round to hearing the case).
The duty of care one is the killer argument - the market should have been suspended as soon as the last media company confirmed Biden had won.
Agreed.
The Trumpsters have a case. Break my teeth to say it, but they do. As a punter, I want and need fair and regulated markets, even for Trumpsters.
Betfair moved the goalposts and kept the market open long beyond its natural termination point. If they get sued to buggery it will be no more than they deserve.
The implication of Betfair keeping the market open is that they would have paid out on a Trump win, had he successfully stolen the election. And I guess that rather disturbing thought will be the foundation for their defence to any such case.
Hmmm....maybe, but they would then undoubtedly have faced action from those of us who wanted the market settled in accordance with the rules, as originally stated by Betfair....
You vote for a third party. If there are sufficient intelligent right of centre voters who do so, the Republican party will eventually get the message.
Wouldn’t that take at least a couple of electoral cycles to filter through? There doesn’t seem to be much taste for strategic delayed gratification in the GOP at the moment, go for the big voter pool of crazies and complain about fraud and stolen elections seems more their thing. Doesn't help that quite a few of their elected members are also crazies..
I wonder if Dominic Cummings had received his £45,000 pay increase by then. Or did he receive it afterwards as some sort of bonus for entertaining the nation with tales of his eye tests and the rest?
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
The GSK/Sanofi vaccine is different to the Oxford/AZ vaccine, right?
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
The GSK/Sanofi vaccine is different to the Oxford/AZ vaccine, right?
Different mechanism. Though the difference in the young/old response seems to be similar. I'm honestly hoping that the MHRA only gives AZ approval for under 55s and asks them to do a new study for over 55s. That will give us a double rollout strategy where the young and old will both benefit immediately.
I might be remembering wrong... but I think the issue with Santorum was that the market stayed open and some enterprising punters bet on Santorum at 1000/1 figuring there was at least a chance of a mistake on such a close result. Then those people didn't get their big payday when Santorum did actually win.
On the general bet with betfair or not question - I don't see an alternative that has a good range of politics markets and sufficient liquidity. I'd note that Sporting Index were also slow/cautious to pay out on my ECV bet.
But it is a worrying trend. There was the ridiculous Theresa May ceasing to be leader market also I think?
Ultimately though betfair could fix these issues fairly easily by paying more attention to the rules they set out and then following them. Personally I'll keep using them but try not to be too greedy/get involved in poorly defined markets.
Listening to the Jenrick talking about the "walking watches" who physically patrol buildings covered in "RapidBurn" cladding. Surely the Tories have missed a trick here. Burney-goodness cladding is cheap and thus profitable for their mates. And walking firewatch patrols sound like the perfect new industry to employ the newly Covid unemployed.
I have to say that this article took me aback, as i had not been following the inquiry from day to day.
Some insight into the No 10 thinking from Telegrph:
"While Downing Street acknowledges that allowing more household mixing from December 23 to 27 may push up infections, the feeling is it would be even worse to cancel Christmas and face the prospect of a disgruntled public abandoning the rules altogether in the New Year."
Listening to 5 live this morning the consensus seemed to be we will do what we want as it is Christmas
I doubt the politicians can resolve this problem either way and it is time everyone took responsibility for their own safety
In which case the message from the government needs to be stern. "We can't stop you gathering. If you do, you may be gathering again in January to bury your family members".
Generally, extreme messages like this are counterproductive in public health, even if true. They have a tendency to make people switch off and ignore.
Just like lecturing people on "white privilege".
One of several reasons that I do not. I think in Britain class privilege is more pernicious, though there is a lot of intersectionality with race etc.
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
We have to be careful with results like this, which are in effect a sample of 2. As we know from political polling, one can always find something intriguing if one looks at enough subsamples, and if you pick two groups (in this case under-50s and 50+), one or the other will appear to be better. The question is whether that's a typical pattern.
The same applies to the contraintuitive "less is more" finding for the Oxford vaccine lower-dose subgroup. Since scientists have been at a loss to give a systematic explanation beyond "It might be that...", it seems quite possible that it was a chance factor.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
And that highlights the issue with techno-libertarian-utopianism. Science can do remarkable things; hell, that's one of the important stories of this year. But there are some underlying parameters where it's difficult to see what can be done, no matter how clever or numerous the boffins or how great the economic rewards.
To give a real example from materials science, nobody has come up with a useful material with a substantially better combination of stiffness and lightness than wood.
To give another example which I hope is true; back when the Military-Industrial Complex was a thing, Richard Feynman went to some sort of meeting with US Army highups. It's said that a general went up to the professor and told him that what the Army really, really needed was a tank that could be fuelled by sand.
Doable, but you would need a lot of Chlorine trifloride as an oxidiser. Getting an ICE to work with that combination would be a challenge, and dealing with the exhaust products would be exciting.
You vote for a third party. If there are sufficient intelligent right of centre voters who do so, the Republican party will eventually get the message.
Wouldn’t that take at least a couple of electoral cycles to filter through? There doesn’t seem to be much taste for strategic delayed gratification in the GOP at the moment, go for the big voter pool of crazies and complain about fraud and stolen elections seems more their thing. Doesn't help that quite a few of their elected members are also crazies..
Indeed - I don't hold out much hope for them in the near future. And 2024 could see democracy in the balance again.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
Alternatively, just jettison the dead batteries - and allow small boys to collect them up for the £1 reward.....
Over Slough, after the thrust required for take-off from Heathrow perhaps.
I heard from my octogenarian step-mother that she is due to be vaccinated on Friday in a fairly small Devon town, so things seem to be moving ahead quite well.
The talk of Lockdown 3 in Febraury is daft as by then I would imagine that the vast majority of 80+ people in this country would have had a double dose and thus be immune.
I heard from my octogenarian step-mother that she is due to be vaccinated on Friday in a fairly small Devon town, so things seem to be moving ahead quite well.
The talk of Lockdown 3 in Febraury is daft as by then I would imagine that the vast majority of 80+ people in this country would have had a double dose and thus be immune.
That will certainly be a big factor in MP's thinking.
Naah. Homophobes so often fantasise about the thing they attack. He wants a good pegging but is afraid that it will be contrary to someone else's definition of being a manly man man.
Does a political/constitutional expert/lawyer know - trade deals that Truss has signed eg with Canada, Japan etc . . . are they ratified by Parliament? If so is that eg by a Statutory Instrument or similar?
Or are they implemented via Royal Prerogative?
Not all trade agreements are treaties, Truss's agreements are not, and even if they were Parliamentary approval is (subject to the limited effect of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 see below) technically only for needed for agreements with foreign and EU countries if it agreement requires a change in domestic law (changes to revenue collection, minimum standards etc.). Technically, (again, subject to the below) if a treaty or agreement requires changes to domestic legislation or internal constitutional arrangements, as in the Miller case, then Parliamentary approval is needed.
So Truss rolling over previous agreements withou a Treaty shouldn't need parliamentary approval as nothing domestically changes as a result - but anything more (or less) ambitious might do.
The starting point for treaty ratification in the UK is that the Government has the sole power to make international treaties under the Queen's sovereign prerogative powers - it infurates me when people go on about "our" sovereignty when in fact it belongs to Elizabeth II. Parliament is "supreme" over the Crown but that's a different issue - it means that Parliament in domestic areas can tell the Crown how to exercise sovereignty, but in foreign affairs remains a royal prerogative exercised by HMG on her behalf, theoretically (again subject to the below) not needing Parliamentary oversight. Parliament cannot change treaties. The US legislature's ability to do this is, globally, an almost unique power
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 does require the Government to lay before Parliament most treaties (but not agreements like memoranda of understanding) it wishes to ratify, along with an Explanatory Memorandum. This gave statutory form to part of the previous Ponsonby Rule, a constitutional convention, on parliamentary involvement with treaties and, theoretically, section 20(4 ) could result in Parliament delaying ratification by HMG, but section 20(8) says that "The treaty may be ratified if a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why." So the whole section is probably moot anyway.
"White privilege" is simply that white people (especially white, straight, men) face less barriers and obstacles in life and society, on the whole. This is due to a whole manner of historical reasons.
That doesn't mean that white people don't suffer or that white people don't earn their success. It also doesn't mean that the struggles of the white working class, for example, are any less meaningful.
There's nothing "woke" about it as a concept and it annoys me when Twitter idiots turn it into a whole lifestyle.
Fewer white people in Britain now go to university than Chinese or Indian Britons and white people in Britain also now earn less than British Chinese people on average, not much white privilege there is there?
In fact fewer white working class boys go to university than any other ethnic group.
Yes we need to ensure the police do not target black men disproportionally for stop and search etc but beyond that there is very little white privilege around now that I can see, certainly in relation to the British Indian and Chinese communities for example which are both wealthy and highly educated.
It is the victimhood mentality of leftwingers like you which is part of the problem in giving a victim status to everyone bar the white working class, especially white working class males, who are there merely to be the subject of mockery for, for example, their pro Brexit views rather than anything being done to help them
I heard from my octogenarian step-mother that she is due to be vaccinated on Friday in a fairly small Devon town, so things seem to be moving ahead quite well.
They haven’t done my mum yet and she should be first in the queue! They seem to be vaccinating all the wrong people!
40K jabs is not something to applaud if it’s random wrong people, soft lying fruit just to get your stats up, it’s 40K mistakes! If that is the crime the government are committing, it should be punishable with custodial sentence.
"White privilege" is simply that white people (especially white, straight, men) face less barriers and obstacles in life and society, on the whole. This is due to a whole manner of historical reasons.
That doesn't mean that white people don't suffer or that white people don't earn their success. It also doesn't mean that the struggles of the white working class, for example, are any less meaningful.
There's nothing "woke" about it as a concept and it annoys me when Twitter idiots turn it into a whole lifestyle.
Fewer white people in Britain now go to university than Chinese or Indian Britons and white people in Britain also now earn less than British Chinese people on average, not much white privilege there is there?
In fact fewer white working class boys go to university than any other ethnic group.
Yes we need to ensure the police do not target black men disproportionally for stop and search etc but beyond that there is very little white privilege around now that I can see, certainly in relation to the British Indian and Chinese communities for example which are both wealthy and highly educated.
It is the victimhood mentality of leftwingers like you which is part of the problem in giving a victim status to everyone bar the white working class, especially white working class males, who are there merely to be the subject of mockery for, for example, their pro Brexit views rather than anything being done to help them
How many elderly white people have been illegally deported from the UK after living here almost their entire lives?
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
It's an option for short haul of between 1,000-2,000km, which make up about a third of emissions:
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
And that highlights the issue with techno-libertarian-utopianism. Science can do remarkable things; hell, that's one of the important stories of this year. But there are some underlying parameters where it's difficult to see what can be done, no matter how clever or numerous the boffins or how great the economic rewards.
To give a real example from materials science, nobody has come up with a useful material with a substantially better combination of stiffness and lightness than wood.
To give another example which I hope is true; back when the Military-Industrial Complex was a thing, Richard Feynman went to some sort of meeting with US Army highups. It's said that a general went up to the professor and told him that what the Army really, really needed was a tank that could be fuelled by sand.
Doable, but you would need a lot of Chlorine trifloride as an oxidiser. Getting an ICE to work with that combination would be a challenge, and dealing with the exhaust products would be exciting.
If your armed forces have access to large amounts of CF3, and a storage system for it, I don't think they need tanks. Just don't tell @Dura_Ace .
‘ Ms von der Leyen indicated that fishing rights remains a key sticking point, but suggested progress had been made on the so-called "level playing field".’.
It’s moments like this I don’t like the EU, remember how these powerful northern league states humiliated the Greeks, and some extent Italians and Spanish just like they are doing to us now? They seem to be a bit cocky how it Boris doing all the back peddling whilst they don’t budge at all.
In the last week we clearly have the NI surrender, and the ratchet surrender, but exactly zilch EU compromise.
"White privilege" is simply that white people (especially white, straight, men) face less barriers and obstacles in life and society, on the whole. This is due to a whole manner of historical reasons.
That doesn't mean that white people don't suffer or that white people don't earn their success. It also doesn't mean that the struggles of the white working class, for example, are any less meaningful.
There's nothing "woke" about it as a concept and it annoys me when Twitter idiots turn it into a whole lifestyle.
If you're explaining, you're losing. It's an unhelpful convection that crudely categorises people, and therefore polarises them, and it should be ditched for that reason alone.
See Robert's excellent post at the start of the thread.
There is no one who is not aware of the Covid risks. Whether they be 20 or 80. Hence we should be trusted to do what we believe we want to or think right. For some that will be seeing their 80-yr old parents; for some that will not be seeing their 80-yr old parents.
I don't think anyone will go directly from a knees-up at Spoons to their 80-yr old parents.
I think given the risk profile it is mostly for the 80-yr old parents to decide ultimately. For some of those, Christmas and seeing family is a hugely important part of their lives in a pretty miserable year, perhaps enough for it to be a significant factor in their mental health wellbeing; for others they will not mind waiting a few more months to see the family.
I guess the question is whether Covid is a seat belts (protect the people in your car) or a drink driving (protect everyone on the road) kind of situation. I would say that it's more like the latter so the government absolutely should be able to tell people what to do. I think this whole "let's keep Christmas going" thing is horseshit, especially when the government was happy to shut down Eid with a few hours' notice. They've had plenty of time to see that their approach will lead to people dying unnecessarily and should have the guts to tell people that the situation has changed.
Let's not forget that it is and was supposed to be about protecting the NHS. If people want to bungee jump, drive racing cars, 3-day event or what have you the government says nothing about it and rightly so.
But of course bungee jumping, etc doesn't impact others and hence we are at your "protecting others". But this is your family. This is precisely people in your car and hence your former example. Of course wearing seatbelts is imo rightly mandated by law but I believe Christmas, for some people, is a special case. For others, it is not and they presumably won't have one this year.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
I heard from my octogenarian step-mother that she is due to be vaccinated on Friday in a fairly small Devon town, so things seem to be moving ahead quite well.
They haven’t done my mum yet and she should be first in the queue! They seem to be vaccinating all the wrong people!
40K jabs is not something to applaud if it’s random wrong people, soft lying fruit just to get your stats up, it’s 40K mistakes! If that is the crime the government are committing, it should be punishable with custodial sentence.
My 98 year old grandmother hasn't heard anything yet. She said that In Wales they are only vaccinating in the North and haven't started in the Valleys yet. If this is correct, it seems to be the wrong priority as the outbreak is terrible in the Valleys right now.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
Care homes: the nightmare for my mother continues.
A few weeks ago the media widely reported a change to government rules regarding care home visits. This, said the media and the government, would - at last - herald meaningful inside visits with our loved ones, starting before Christmas.
My mum`s care home were gearing up for this, waiting for the rapid test (LFT) kits to arrive. I`d informed my mum of the positive change that was on the way, and I would be able to see her at Christmas.
However, yesterday, out of the blue, the care home emailed relatives saying that it has been found that negative lateral flow device results are only 75% reliable, and “this has led to many scientists, organisations and local authorities advising against their use for visiting as this does not remove risk sufficiently”. So, the care home management has decided not to implement these new rules.
Note that the government guidance specifically covers this imperfection. It says “while rapid testing can reduce the risks around visiting it does not completely remove the risk of infection”. Therefore, this factor is already discounted into their more relaxed new guidance.
Unfortunately the same guidance gives license for individual care homes to “dynamically assess risk” and the care homes are using this license to exercise judgement about when, and in what circumstances, visits can be safely supported, which - it is clear - is resulting in them applying rules which are more risk-averse than the government guidelines allows, citing resident and carer safety as their reason. (The less gullible (or more cynical) may think that the main reason is commercial: they are being supplied the test kits but not being funded to administer them.)
To be honest with electric planes, and more sustainable aviation fuels and carbon-neutral methods of ground construction, it should be possible to expand Heathrow in the long-term without too much environmental impact.
I don't think commercially viable electric aircraft are anywhere near due to energy density considerations. Jet A1 = 40Mj/kg. Li-ion batteries = 0.7 Mj/kg.
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
There is no one who is not aware of the Covid risks. Whether they be 20 or 80. Hence we should be trusted to do what we believe we want to or think right. For some that will be seeing their 80-yr old parents; for some that will not be seeing their 80-yr old parents.
I don't think anyone will go directly from a knees-up at Spoons to their 80-yr old parents.
I think given the risk profile it is mostly for the 80-yr old parents to decide ultimately. For some of those, Christmas and seeing family is a hugely important part of their lives in a pretty miserable year, perhaps enough for it to be a significant factor in their mental health wellbeing; for others they will not mind waiting a few more months to see the family.
I guess the question is whether Covid is a seat belts (protect the people in your car) or a drink driving (protect everyone on the road) kind of situation. I would say that it's more like the latter so the government absolutely should be able to tell people what to do. I think this whole "let's keep Christmas going" thing is horseshit, especially when the government was happy to shut down Eid with a few hours' notice. They've had plenty of time to see that their approach will lead to people dying unnecessarily and should have the guts to tell people that the situation has changed.
Let's not forget that it is and was supposed to be about protecting the NHS. If people want to bungee jump, drive racing cars, 3-day event or what have you the government says nothing about it and rightly so.
But of course bungee jumping, etc doesn't impact others and hence we are at your "protecting others". But this is your family. This is precisely people in your car and hence your former example. Of course wearing seatbelts is imo rightly mandated by law but I believe Christmas, for some people, is a special case. For others, it is not and they presumably won't have one this year.
How can anyone be so stupid as to think that if you spread the infection within your family it will stop there?
There is no one who is not aware of the Covid risks. Whether they be 20 or 80. Hence we should be trusted to do what we believe we want to or think right. For some that will be seeing their 80-yr old parents; for some that will not be seeing their 80-yr old parents.
I don't think anyone will go directly from a knees-up at Spoons to their 80-yr old parents.
I think given the risk profile it is mostly for the 80-yr old parents to decide ultimately. For some of those, Christmas and seeing family is a hugely important part of their lives in a pretty miserable year, perhaps enough for it to be a significant factor in their mental health wellbeing; for others they will not mind waiting a few more months to see the family.
I guess the question is whether Covid is a seat belts (protect the people in your car) or a drink driving (protect everyone on the road) kind of situation. I would say that it's more like the latter so the government absolutely should be able to tell people what to do. I think this whole "let's keep Christmas going" thing is horseshit, especially when the government was happy to shut down Eid with a few hours' notice. They've had plenty of time to see that their approach will lead to people dying unnecessarily and should have the guts to tell people that the situation has changed.
Let's not forget that it is and was supposed to be about protecting the NHS. If people want to bungee jump, drive racing cars, 3-day event or what have you the government says nothing about it and rightly so.
But of course bungee jumping, etc doesn't impact others and hence we are at your "protecting others". But this is your family. This is precisely people in your car and hence your former example. Of course wearing seatbelts is imo rightly mandated by law but I believe Christmas, for some people, is a special case. For others, it is not and they presumably won't have one this year.
The virus doesn't stop at the Christmas bubble though. If you've got one household going in with Covid, and three coming out, you've now also increased the risk for everyone else coming in contact with your family.
‘ Ms von der Leyen indicated that fishing rights remains a key sticking point, but suggested progress had been made on the so-called "level playing field".’.
It’s moments like this I don’t like the EU, remember how these powerful northern league states humiliated the Greeks, and some extent Italians and Spanish just like they are doing to us now? They seem to be a bit cocky how it Boris doing all the back peddling whilst they don’t budge at all.
In the last week we clearly have the NI surrender, and the ratchet surrender, but exactly zilch EU compromise.
If they have the leverage it's their call how to use it. It's how diplomacy has operated throughout history and this country has done exactly the same thing in similar circumstances when it has been able to. They can play their cards as they wish and, if Boris is right, we can walk.
There is no one who is not aware of the Covid risks. Whether they be 20 or 80. Hence we should be trusted to do what we believe we want to or think right. For some that will be seeing their 80-yr old parents; for some that will not be seeing their 80-yr old parents.
I don't think anyone will go directly from a knees-up at Spoons to their 80-yr old parents.
I think given the risk profile it is mostly for the 80-yr old parents to decide ultimately. For some of those, Christmas and seeing family is a hugely important part of their lives in a pretty miserable year, perhaps enough for it to be a significant factor in their mental health wellbeing; for others they will not mind waiting a few more months to see the family.
I guess the question is whether Covid is a seat belts (protect the people in your car) or a drink driving (protect everyone on the road) kind of situation. I would say that it's more like the latter so the government absolutely should be able to tell people what to do. I think this whole "let's keep Christmas going" thing is horseshit, especially when the government was happy to shut down Eid with a few hours' notice. They've had plenty of time to see that their approach will lead to people dying unnecessarily and should have the guts to tell people that the situation has changed.
Let's not forget that it is and was supposed to be about protecting the NHS. If people want to bungee jump, drive racing cars, 3-day event or what have you the government says nothing about it and rightly so.
But of course bungee jumping, etc doesn't impact others and hence we are at your "protecting others". But this is your family. This is precisely people in your car and hence your former example. Of course wearing seatbelts is imo rightly mandated by law but I believe Christmas, for some people, is a special case. For others, it is not and they presumably won't have one this year.
But it's not just your family. You give it to aunty Brenda, who passes it onto a work colleague, who dies. You give it to your granny, who ends up in hospital, where the nurse treating her catches it and dies. This is how infectious diseases work: if they could only be passed on once they would die out!
Care homes: the nightmare for my mother continues.
A few weeks ago the media widely reported a change to government rules regarding care home visits. This, said the media and the government, would - at last - herald meaningful inside visits with our loved ones, starting before Christmas.
My mum`s care home were gearing up for this, waiting for the rapid test (LFT) kits to arrive. I`d informed my mum of the positive change that was on the way, and I would be able to see her at Christmas.
However, yesterday, out of the blue, the care home emailed relatives saying that it has been found that negative lateral flow device results are only 75% reliable, and “this has led to many scientists, organisations and local authorities advising against their use for visiting as this does not remove risk sufficiently”. So, the care home management has decided not to implement these new rules.
Note that the government guidance specifically covers this imperfection. It says “while rapid testing can reduce the risks around visiting it does not completely remove the risk of infection”. Therefore, this factor is already discounted into their more relaxed new guidance.
Unfortunately the same guidance gives license for individual care homes to “dynamically assess risk” and the care homes are using this license to exercise judgement about when, and in what circumstances, visits can be safely supported, which - it is clear - is resulting in them applying rules which are more risk-averse than the government guidelines allows, citing resident and carer safety as their reason. (The less gullible (or more cynical) may think that the main reason is commercial: they are being supplied the test kits but not being funded to administer them.)
I`m furious. Thoughts?
Absolutely horrible very sorry to hear that. I'm not sure what your position is, esp after that high publicity case of the woman who was arrested for trying to "rescue" her mother.
One's instinct is to march in there, PPE-ed up and take her out (is she mobile?) but that I can see may very well not work.
If that were so these 'solutions' wouldn't need a huge helping hand from the taxpayer and the regulator. We wouldn;t need the Maoist step of banning petrol cars in 2030, for example. We could trust the market and the consumer.
The market and consumer are changing. Even in my road in a not fashionable bit of London, there are now at least three and maybe four electric cars, and several hybrids. Charging points are springing up all over the place, and in some areas they are becoming very common. What the goverment is doing is giving the market a nudge, but there's no doubt in my mind that we will see cars switch to electric motors no matter what the goverment wants, because the technological trends favour batteries and electric motors.
Comments
Should be for politicians not Greenpeace to decide if so.
A gap that will become glaringly and catastrophically obvious between now and 2050.
I see it as a victory for the correct constitutional order of the UK.
As far as I'm aware this was all private money and not state money building it, so I think it should go ahead and disagree with Johnson on this. It should be built and we need to move forwards.
If business no longer want to pay for it because of Covid then that should be there choice too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48919813
1. I don't recall seeing the term 'official result' in the rules, which is why I asked you earlier for a citation. I think the phrase appeared, along with other possible benchmarks, in subsequent PR statements. Had it appeared in the market rules I would have expected the term to be defined. In the absence of such a definition I would have probably sought clarification, or assumed they meant 'certification'. But I don't think it was in the rules, so it isn't really relevant.
2. You have to draw a clear distinction between betting rules on the one hand, and subsequent court proceedings and the like on the other hand. Once the terms of the betting rules are met, the market is settled. What happens next can of course be subject to the law of the land, whether in the US or elsewhere. If you do not maintain this distinction you are likely to go mad. No bet could ever be settled finally or with certainty.
If for some perverse reason a market-maker wanted to include court and other processes in the market rules they could do so, but it would be bonkers, which is presumably why you never see it. The distinction between market rules as stated by the market-maker and civil procedures such as court action is fundamental and most people have no difficulty seeing and understanding it. You do not, and I think that is where your problem lies.
"White privilege" is simply that white people (especially white, straight, men) face less barriers and obstacles in life and society, on the whole. This is due to a whole manner of historical reasons.
That doesn't mean that white people don't suffer or that white people don't earn their success. It also doesn't mean that the struggles of the white working class, for example, are any less meaningful.
There's nothing "woke" about it as a concept and it annoys me when Twitter idiots turn it into a whole lifestyle.
Is there any reason why the site keeps crashing on my iPad? Sometimes I can't load any comments - very frustrating
I think this whole "let's keep Christmas going" thing is horseshit, especially when the government was happy to shut down Eid with a few hours' notice. They've had plenty of time to see that their approach will lead to people dying unnecessarily and should have the guts to tell people that the situation has changed.
I have already heard of one friend's partner who works in NHS who had it earlier this week. Heartening news.
Or are they implemented via Royal Prerogative?
You also have to carry the depleted batteries all the way to destination unlike fuel which gets consumed.
Aviation is more likely to end up powered by H or e-fuel.
What's the mental picture?
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/glaxo-gsk-sanofi-delay-study-151003965.html
Note this though
Interim data from a phase I/II study showed that in adults aged 18 to 49 years, the candidate showed an immune response comparable to patients who recovered from COVID-19. However, in older adults, the vaccine candidate demonstrated a low immune response, which may be due to an insufficient concentration of the
antigen.
Yet more evidence to my mind that Oxford-Astra should be rolled out for those of us in 'group 10'.
2. There is a certainty and finality date though - Monday was it. All recounts, court cases etc need to happen prior to the Electoral College meeting which is when the results get changed from projected to official (and subsequent events like faithless electors get disregarded under the rules). Prior to Monday the projected results were not official yet, as of Monday they were.
You think the terms of the rules were met on the 7th when CNN made a projection. I honestly read it as the terms of the rules were met on Monday when the projection became official. Betfair agrees with me it seems. They always said they could wait for it to be official.
As it is, I think they have a problem but it is their's, not mine.
Trump is more of a Pottersville kind of guy.
Incorrect or overturned projections are not winners. The networks called Florida 2000 for Gore then switched it to TCTC then switched it to Bush. Did Betfair pay out for Gore? No, of course not.
The only results that matter are the official results. The official results are the state of play when the Electoral College meets.
To give a real example from materials science, nobody has come up with a useful material with a substantially better combination of stiffness and lightness than wood.
To give another example which I hope is true; back when the Military-Industrial Complex was a thing, Richard Feynman went to some sort of meeting with US Army highups. It's said that a general went up to the professor and told him that what the Army really, really needed was a tank that could be fuelled by sand.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/16/a-raging-inferno-testimony-reveals-how-deadly-cladding-ended-up-on-grenfell-tower
Unfortunately you have made them up, as they did after the event.
Now I'm afraid I've had enough of explaining why water is wet and wish to get on with other things.
Adieu.
As will all of the vaccines thus far and likely all of the vaccines being developed. If we're aiming for herd immunity (Which we should be) rolling out the super strong pfizer vaccine to older adults whilst at the same time giving Oxford to younger adults would be a sensible path forward.
Even at well-provided for airports, people generally drive or get a taxi owing to their luggage.
So con: electric plans are not the answer; pro: CO2 efficient vehicles are. Or a further shift in public transport usage.
If we have the tech to produce that economically from renewable electric, then synfuel will be just about as easy. And way easier from the point of practical use.
Electric is quite likely to be used in short haul, though, with quite large advantages in maintenance costs. And Li/S batteries offer a possible order of magnitude improvement in energy/kg on what we have now - though that's probably a decade off.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1339092502272466945?s=20
(doubling cube on 32 and other player conceded whilst he still had stones in my bearing off area...)
On the general bet with betfair or not question - I don't see an alternative that has a good range of politics markets and sufficient liquidity. I'd note that Sporting Index were also slow/cautious to pay out on my ECV bet.
But it is a worrying trend. There was the ridiculous Theresa May ceasing to be leader market also I think?
Ultimately though betfair could fix these issues fairly easily by paying more attention to the rules they set out and then following them. Personally I'll keep using them but try not to be too greedy/get involved in poorly defined markets.
The same applies to the contraintuitive "less is more" finding for the Oxford vaccine lower-dose subgroup. Since scientists have been at a loss to give a systematic explanation beyond "It might be that...", it seems quite possible that it was a chance factor.
Over Slough, after the thrust required for take-off from Heathrow perhaps.
So Truss rolling over previous agreements withou a Treaty shouldn't need parliamentary approval as nothing domestically changes as a result - but anything more (or less) ambitious might do.
The starting point for treaty ratification in the UK is that the Government has the sole power to make international treaties under the Queen's sovereign prerogative powers - it infurates me when people go on about "our" sovereignty when in fact it belongs to Elizabeth II. Parliament is "supreme" over the Crown but that's a different issue - it means that Parliament in domestic areas can tell the Crown how to exercise sovereignty, but in foreign affairs remains a royal prerogative exercised by HMG on her behalf, theoretically (again subject to the below) not needing Parliamentary oversight. Parliament cannot change treaties. The US legislature's ability to do this is, globally, an almost unique power
The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 does require the Government to lay before Parliament most treaties (but not agreements like memoranda of understanding) it wishes to ratify, along with an Explanatory Memorandum. This gave statutory form to part of the previous Ponsonby Rule, a constitutional convention, on parliamentary involvement with treaties and, theoretically, section 20(4 ) could result in Parliament delaying ratification by HMG, but section 20(8) says that "The treaty may be ratified if a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why." So the whole section is probably moot anyway.
In fact fewer white working class boys go to university than any other ethnic group.
Yes we need to ensure the police do not target black men disproportionally for stop and search etc but beyond that there is very little white privilege around now that I can see, certainly in relation to the British Indian and Chinese communities for example which are both wealthy and highly educated.
It is the victimhood mentality of leftwingers like you which is part of the problem in giving a victim status to everyone bar the white working class, especially white working class males, who are there merely to be the subject of mockery for, for example, their pro Brexit views rather than anything being done to help them
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1339141676590305281?s=20
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/1339155055644037121?s=20
You just knew there was going to be a "but" didn't you?
Not "and", but "but".
40K jabs is not something to applaud if it’s random wrong people, soft lying fruit just to get your stats up, it’s 40K mistakes! If that is the crime the government are committing, it should be punishable with custodial sentence.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200617-the-largest-electric-plane-ever-to-fly#:~:text=At a large airfield surrounded,fly powered by electricity alone.&text=The two companies behind it,are chuffed with the results.
Biofuels and hydrogen fuels may be an option for long-haul flights but the technology is still under development.
Right. Back to marking.
It’s moments like this I don’t like the EU, remember how these powerful northern league states humiliated the Greeks, and some extent Italians and Spanish just like they are doing to us now? They seem to be a bit cocky how it Boris doing all the back peddling whilst they don’t budge at all.
In the last week we clearly have the NI surrender, and the ratchet surrender, but exactly zilch EU compromise.
See Robert's excellent post at the start of the thread.
But of course bungee jumping, etc doesn't impact others and hence we are at your "protecting others". But this is your family. This is precisely people in your car and hence your former example. Of course wearing seatbelts is imo rightly mandated by law but I believe Christmas, for some people, is a special case. For others, it is not and they presumably won't have one this year.
https://www.airbus.com/innovation/zero-emission/electric-flight.html
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/hybrid-airship.html
A few weeks ago the media widely reported a change to government rules regarding care home visits. This, said the media and the government, would - at last - herald meaningful inside visits with our loved ones, starting before Christmas.
My mum`s care home were gearing up for this, waiting for the rapid test (LFT) kits to arrive. I`d informed my mum of the positive change that was on the way, and I would be able to see her at Christmas.
However, yesterday, out of the blue, the care home emailed relatives saying that it has been found that negative lateral flow device results are only 75% reliable, and “this has led to many scientists, organisations and local authorities advising against their use for visiting as this does not remove risk sufficiently”. So, the care home management has decided not to implement these new rules.
Note that the government guidance specifically covers this imperfection. It says “while rapid testing can reduce the risks around visiting it does not completely remove the risk of infection”. Therefore, this factor is already discounted into their more relaxed new guidance.
Unfortunately the same guidance gives license for individual care homes to “dynamically assess risk” and the care homes are using this license to exercise judgement about when, and in what circumstances, visits can be safely supported, which - it is clear - is resulting in them applying rules which are more risk-averse than the government guidelines allows, citing resident and carer safety as their reason. (The less gullible (or more cynical) may think that the main reason is commercial: they are being supplied the test kits but not being funded to administer them.)
I`m furious. Thoughts?
I could be convinced but I'd need to know the safety case and testing was shit-hot.
Breathtaking.
This has got to be the most random thing I've read this year. Cigarette company makes vaccine for COVID.
One's instinct is to march in there, PPE-ed up and take her out (is she mobile?) but that I can see may very well not work.