Isn't spending much of the period between electoral cycles having legal battles over the result of the last election and the actions of those elected how the Roman Republic did it at the end many times? And it worked out great, I don't see the problem.
Any minute now, Pence will look at the sky, declare that thunder makes the omens unfavourable and send the everyone home.....
Look, nothing in the Constitution says you cannot appoint a Chief Augur, I'm just saying.
The 9th and 10th Amendments says otherwise.
I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of federal offices appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate that are not specifically provided for in the Constitution. They do have to be authorised by statute though. However, as auguries are clearly a religious practice, creating such an office would likely fall foul of the 1st Amendment though: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Ok you can have that.
And in any case the Pontifex Maximus was effectively Chief Augur and the post is already occupied (by Pope Francis)
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity can only be *granted* by the receiving country.
There is a separate concept that Heads of State have immunity by virtue of their office. Which has a ton of caveats and gets the 4 figure per hour lawyers all excited.
There is also the fun area of law regarding immunity for former Heads of State.
But right now Trump has diplomatic immunity and pretty much every country has granted it to him, the worst they can do is revoke it and tell him to go back.
That's how I read it in an article I read a while back.
Specifically declaring a Head of State has no immunity, if he visits your country, would be a fairly interesting precedent.
The missing graph from that series is the one on the number of vaccinations conducted.
Why are the Government being so reticent in updating the figures? Is there a problem? Those on the Worldindata site have figures that date back to 27th December, when most other countries are showing data for 3rd or 4th Jan and updating data daily.
They are being updated weekly - the data to Sunday will be out tomorrow
It wants to be a shitload higher than 944,000 as they were at 895,XXX a soon after they started it seems.
Edit: 944,000 to last Sunday is around 50,000/day including all days.
Boris announced 1.3 million as of today
So now at 46,000/day.
We really need daily stats.
On the cumulative number of UK vaccinations: 0 until 8th December 641,000 by 20th December (Worldindata graph) 945,000 by 27th December (ditto) 1,300,000 (approx) by "this afternoon" of 5th January
So clearly no acceleration whatsoever over the last 4 weeks. I think that's why they have not been making more of the numbers. I would expect the limiting factor to be supplies from Pfizer, since it's hard to believe that there would not have been some acceleration otherwise.
Is it fair to say that before Boris became PM his critics warned he was a liberty taker, and now they are criticising him for not taking enough of them, and being too slow about it when he does?
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity can only be *granted* by the receiving country.
There is a separate concept that Heads of State have immunity by virtue of their office. Which has a ton of caveats and gets the 4 figure per hour lawyers all excited.
There is also the fun area of law regarding immunity for former Heads of State.
But right now Trump has diplomatic immunity and pretty much every country has granted it to him, the worst they can do is revoke it and tell him to go back.
That's how I read it in an article I read a while back.
Specifically declaring a Head of State has no immunity, if he visits your country, would be a fairly interesting precedent.
After he leaves office is a different matter.
He'll be about as safe and secure as Jeffrey Epstein was, I should think.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity can only be *granted* by the receiving country.
There is a separate concept that Heads of State have immunity by virtue of their office. Which has a ton of caveats and gets the 4 figure per hour lawyers all excited.
There is also the fun area of law regarding immunity for former Heads of State.
But right now Trump has diplomatic immunity and pretty much every country has granted it to him, the worst they can do is revoke it and tell him to go back.
That's how I read it in an article I read a while back.
Specifically declaring a Head of State has no immunity, if he visits your country, would be a fairly interesting precedent.
After he leaves office is a different matter.
He'll be about as safe and secure as Jeffrey Epstein was, I should think.
More secure than Epstein, Trump gets lifelong secret service protection.
If Trump is convicted in America he'll end up staying on a military base, as the only prisoner.
The missing graph from that series is the one on the number of vaccinations conducted.
Why are the Government being so reticent in updating the figures? Is there a problem? Those on the Worldindata site have figures that date back to 27th December, when most other countries are showing data for 3rd or 4th Jan and updating data daily.
They are being updated weekly - the data to Sunday will be out tomorrow
It wants to be a shitload higher than 944,000 as they were at 895,XXX a soon after they started it seems.
Edit: 944,000 to last Sunday is around 50,000/day including all days.
Boris announced 1.3 million as of today
So now at 46,000/day.
We really need daily stats.
On the cumulative number of UK vaccinations: 0 until 8th December 641,000 by 20th December (Worldindata graph) 945,000 by 27th December (ditto) 1,300,000 (approx) by "this afternoon" of 5th January
So clearly no acceleration whatsoever over the last 4 weeks. I think that's why they have not been making more of the numbers. I would expect the limiting factor to be supplies from Pfizer, since it's hard to believe that there would not have been some acceleration otherwise.
Plus 60,000 new cases per day, that's 100,000 immune people.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity can only be *granted* by the receiving country.
There is a separate concept that Heads of State have immunity by virtue of their office. Which has a ton of caveats and gets the 4 figure per hour lawyers all excited.
There is also the fun area of law regarding immunity for former Heads of State.
But right now Trump has diplomatic immunity and pretty much every country has granted it to him, the worst they can do is revoke it and tell him to go back.
That's how I read it in an article I read a while back.
Specifically declaring a Head of State has no immunity, if he visits your country, would be a fairly interesting precedent.
After he leaves office is a different matter.
He'll be about as safe and secure as Jeffrey Epstein was, I should think.
More secure than Epstein, Trump gets lifelong secret service protection.
If Trump is convicted in America he'll end up staying on a military base, as the only prisoner.
Give him a TV, deliveries of KFC and a mini golf course and he won't even mind.
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
OK, we are arguing semantics. The tweet is wrong, there is no statistically significant fall in the numbers yet.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity can only be *granted* by the receiving country.
There is a separate concept that Heads of State have immunity by virtue of their office. Which has a ton of caveats and gets the 4 figure per hour lawyers all excited.
There is also the fun area of law regarding immunity for former Heads of State.
But right now Trump has diplomatic immunity and pretty much every country has granted it to him, the worst they can do is revoke it and tell him to go back.
That's how I read it in an article I read a while back.
Specifically declaring a Head of State has no immunity, if he visits your country, would be a fairly interesting precedent.
After he leaves office is a different matter.
He'll be about as safe and secure as Jeffrey Epstein was, I should think.
More secure than Epstein, Trump gets lifelong secret service protection.
If Trump is convicted in America he'll end up staying on a military base, as the only prisoner.
The protection is under federal law but not under the Constitution. Statutes are amendable.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
The missing graph from that series is the one on the number of vaccinations conducted.
Why are the Government being so reticent in updating the figures? Is there a problem? Those on the Worldindata site have figures that date back to 27th December, when most other countries are showing data for 3rd or 4th Jan and updating data daily.
They are being updated weekly - the data to Sunday will be out tomorrow
It wants to be a shitload higher than 944,000 as they were at 895,XXX a soon after they started it seems.
Edit: 944,000 to last Sunday is around 50,000/day including all days.
Boris announced 1.3 million as of today
So now at 46,000/day.
We really need daily stats.
On the cumulative number of UK vaccinations: 0 until 8th December 641,000 by 20th December (Worldindata graph) 945,000 by 27th December (ditto) 1,300,000 (approx) by "this afternoon" of 5th January
So clearly no acceleration whatsoever over the last 4 weeks. I think that's why they have not been making more of the numbers. I would expect the limiting factor to be supplies from Pfizer, since it's hard to believe that there would not have been some acceleration otherwise.
Plus 60,000 new cases per day, that's 100,000 immune people.
The Daily Express this morning reported that one medical centre did 1100 vaccinations yesterday. On the basis of that there are many more than 40-50000 vaccinations being carried out daily in the UK
People criticise Boris for not being more aggressive in locking down, but really let's be fair - do we want a PM who isn't troubled by, and doesn't only in the most extreme circumstances, as a last resort, make it illegal to visit relatives, leave the house, have a cup of tea in the cafe? In the wrong hands that power could be used in the most despicable way. I think people have got used to lockdowns being relatively normal far too easily
(Yet again) I suspect government communications are not good. BJ is obsessed about the vaccine coming to our rescue, which of course we all hope it will. But in the short term, the vaccine should be in the background. Given the data, the only message that counts right now should be the stay at home and follow the rules stuff. Instead, people will respond to BJ's "we'll be out of this soon, thanks to the vaccine" by not being careful enough - there's some evidence of this happening ("we can relax now, a vaccine is on the way"). Wouldn't it be better if they quietly and competently got on with the vaccination programme and focused public messaging on reducing the virus now, with vaccination data accessible? After all, everybody knows a vaccine is being rolled out.
One idle thought - as schools and colleges are largely closed, couldn't the parts of them not being used for vulnerable kids etc. be used as vaccination centres? Most secondary schools and colleges are pretty spacious and have parking, and there's a lot of them about. More room than GP surgeries.
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
OK, we are arguing semantics. The tweet is wrong, there is no statistically significant fall in the numbers yet.
Statistical significance is about sample to population relationships. There is no sampling here, this is a whole population count. You just mean significant. A straight 7 day fall looks significant to me.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
OK, we are arguing semantics. The tweet is wrong, there is no statistically significant fall in the numbers yet.
Statistical significance is about sample to population relationships. There is no sampling here, this is a whole population count. You just mean significant. A straight 7 day fall looks significant to me.
There is sampling, isn't there? The rate is measured from their surveillance surveys.
Basically, I can draw a straight line through the confidence interval, therefore there is no significant fall.
Edit: and the fall looks straight for seven days because there are only two data points!
People criticise Boris for not being more aggressive in locking down, but really let's be fair - do we want a PM who isn't troubled by, and doesn't only in the most extreme circumstances, as a last resort, make it illegal to visit relatives, leave the house, have a cup of tea in the cafe? In the wrong hands that power could be used in the most despicable way. I think people have got used to lockdowns being relatively normal far too easily
I don't think he should be gung ho about locking down at the drop of a hat. Some have called for it at times when it really was not the right call. I also think, sure, we don't want someone untroubled by the imposition of such restrictions.
But I don't see why it should be impossible for someone to be troubled by the severity of such restrictions but accepting of their necessity at specific times, and also move quicker when the data shows the latter situation is upon us.
Yes, he's troubled by doing it, but on multiple occasions has accepted it is the best option despite that, and those troubles don't require him to drag his feet like on the schools decision. Like many people I would have wanted him to do all he could to keep them open, but as the u-turn so soon after reopening shows (and on this occasion that swiftness shows the u-turn is a negative), he really could have moved quicker there, and allowing his troubles to cause further delay has had negative consequences.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
Diplomatic immunity can only be *granted* by the receiving country.
There is a separate concept that Heads of State have immunity by virtue of their office. Which has a ton of caveats and gets the 4 figure per hour lawyers all excited.
There is also the fun area of law regarding immunity for former Heads of State.
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
OK, we are arguing semantics.
We must never condone such behaviour, I wouldn't be caught doing that.
People criticise Boris for not being more aggressive in locking down, but really let's be fair - do we want a PM who isn't troubled by, and doesn't only in the most extreme circumstances, as a last resort, make it illegal to visit relatives, leave the house, have a cup of tea in the cafe? In the wrong hands that power could be used in the most despicable way. I think people have got used to lockdowns being relatively normal far too easily
I don't think he should be gung ho about locking down at the drop of a hat. Some have called for it at times when it really was not the right call. I also think, sure, we don't want someone untroubled by the imposition of such restrictions.
But I don't see why it should be impossible for someone to be troubled by the severity of such restrictions but accepting of their necessity at specific times, and also move quicker when the data shows the latter situation is upon us.
Yes, he's troubled by doing it, but on multiple occasions has accepted it is the best option despite that, and those troubles don't require him to drag his feet like on the schools decision. Like many people I would have wanted him to do all he could to keep them open, but as the u-turn so soon after reopening shows (and on this occasion that swiftness shows the u-turn is a negative), he really could have moved quicker there, and allowing his troubles to cause further delay has had negative consequences.
Opening schools on Monday only to close them on Tuesday seems ridiculous. A lot didn't open for kids though as they had inset days.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
So Trump, as a British citizen, is trying to show how US democracy does not work to enable the US constitution to be revoked so that USA reverts back to the British Crown?
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
OK, we are arguing semantics. The tweet is wrong, there is no statistically significant fall in the numbers yet.
Statistical significance is about sample to population relationships. There is no sampling here, this is a whole population count. You just mean significant. A straight 7 day fall looks significant to me.
There is sampling, isn't there? The rate is measured from their surveillance surveys.
Basically, I can draw a straight line through the confidence interval, therefore there is no significant fall.
Edit: and the fall looks straight for seven days because there are only two data points!
Sorry yes you are right about sampling. Not about data points though, go to https://data.spectator.co.uk/city/london and click get the data. There's data for each day.
'Today must be the most critical non presidential election in modern American history'? What about the 1994, 2002, 2010 or 2018 midterms to name just a few. The 1994 midterms in particular was a major change in terms of the victory for Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America' and I would suggest far more significant than the 2 Georgia Senate runoffs today.
All these elections will determine is whether Joe Manchin or Susan Collins or Mitt Romney will have the casting vote in the Senate, depending on whether the Democrats win both, 1 or 0 of the seats up, not that major a change, indeed on some issues Collins is less conservative than Manchin is.
Plus even if the Democrats fail to win the seats, previous Presidents like Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 have had to deal with a Congress not fully controlled by their party throughout their presidencies so Biden would not be unique
You completely ignore Mitch McConnell in this statement.
The difference between evil piece of crap McConnell heading the Senate or wimpish piece of crap Schumer heading the Senate is night and day for Biden.
Hyperbole.
Biden and McConnell are friends. Mitch was the only Republican to attend the funeral of Joe's son. Yes they would spar and disagree but they would also strike deals. Joe Biden isn't Barack Obama and he knows how to win people over with the equivalent of fireside chats and backroom deals.
What would be really interesting is a 49-51 split ... leaving Mitt Romney as the most powerful person in America after the President. If you get my drift.
Susan Collins is far closer to Biden than Trump. Hell, she's closer to Biden than either Romney or even Sanders.
People criticise Boris for not being more aggressive in locking down, but really let's be fair - do we want a PM who isn't troubled by, and doesn't only in the most extreme circumstances, as a last resort, make it illegal to visit relatives, leave the house, have a cup of tea in the cafe? In the wrong hands that power could be used in the most despicable way. I think people have got used to lockdowns being relatively normal far too easily
That really isn’t an accurate characterisation of what people criticise him for.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
GOP voters taking Trump's sound advice, and staying at home?
Yes, advance voting also down on the Presidential election from 4 million to 3 million, though far higher than usual for a Senate election. I'd think that low turnout should benefit the Democrats, as the more motivated and less divided group, but really hard to be sure. I did see one report saying that black voters had a higher % of early voters than is usual in Georgia.
Another journalist who doesn't understand statistics. There is no evidence it is falling, as indicated by the confidence interval.
Is that right?
Surely there is some evidence it is falling but no certainty that it is due to the confidence interval?
If you estimate that there is a 60% chance of A and 40% chance of B then surely there is some evidence for A.
You cannot say with any confidence that it is falling. For that you need the downward trend to be statistically significant which is not the case here.
Indeed but there is evidence that it is. Still within margin of error but some evidence is there. Needs further confirmation.
Evidence usually has to be significant, which isn't the case. It could just as easily still be going up.
No - that's not right. It couldn't just as easily be going up if you are talking probabilities.
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
OK, we are arguing semantics. The tweet is wrong, there is no statistically significant fall in the numbers yet.
Statistical significance is about sample to population relationships. There is no sampling here, this is a whole population count. You just mean significant. A straight 7 day fall looks significant to me.
There is sampling, isn't there? The rate is measured from their surveillance surveys.
Basically, I can draw a straight line through the confidence interval, therefore there is no significant fall.
Edit: and the fall looks straight for seven days because there are only two data points!
Sorry yes you are right about sampling. Not about data points though, go to https://data.spectator.co.uk/city/london and click get the data. There's data for each day.
I don't think these are individual measurements. Rather they are "data points" of the model fit to the measurements. The ONS series is once per week.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
So Trump, as a British citizen, is trying to show how US democracy does not work to enable the US constitution to be revoked so that USA reverts back to the British Crown?
I assume the President has sole authority to revoke the declaration of independence? Otherwise it will have all been for naught.
Evidence of what a lot of us argue about problem of delay between announcement and lockdowns coming into force...people go mad just before them and cause an increase in infections...so you need to decide you need to and lockdown immediately.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
'Today must be the most critical non presidential election in modern American history'? What about the 1994, 2002, 2010 or 2018 midterms to name just a few. The 1994 midterms in particular was a major change in terms of the victory for Newt Gingrich's 'Contract with America' and I would suggest far more significant than the 2 Georgia Senate runoffs today.
All these elections will determine is whether Joe Manchin or Susan Collins or Mitt Romney will have the casting vote in the Senate, depending on whether the Democrats win both, 1 or 0 of the seats up, not that major a change, indeed on some issues Collins is less conservative than Manchin is.
Plus even if the Democrats fail to win the seats, previous Presidents like Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41 have had to deal with a Congress not fully controlled by their party throughout their presidencies so Biden would not be unique
You completely ignore Mitch McConnell in this statement.
The difference between evil piece of crap McConnell heading the Senate or wimpish piece of crap Schumer heading the Senate is night and day for Biden.
Hyperbole.
Biden and McConnell are friends. Mitch was the only Republican to attend the funeral of Joe's son. Yes they would spar and disagree but they would also strike deals. Joe Biden isn't Barack Obama and he knows how to win people over with the equivalent of fireside chats and backroom deals.
What would be really interesting is a 49-51 split ... leaving Mitt Romney as the most powerful person in America after the President. If you get my drift.
If McConnell is still Majority leaders what's the over/under you will give me on the number of Judges Biden will get confirmed over the next 2 years?
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Doesn't the US guarantee all their Presidents and cabinet officers lifelong diplomatic immunity?
One other point - the SG own Prestwick airport ...
The missing graph from that series is the one on the number of vaccinations conducted.
Why are the Government being so reticent in updating the figures? Is there a problem? Those on the Worldindata site have figures that date back to 27th December, when most other countries are showing data for 3rd or 4th Jan and updating data daily.
They are being updated weekly - the data to Sunday will be out tomorrow
It wants to be a shitload higher than 944,000 as they were at 895,XXX a soon after they started it seems.
Edit: 944,000 to last Sunday is around 50,000/day including all days.
Boris announced 1.3 million as of today
So now at 46,000/day.
We really need daily stats.
On the cumulative number of UK vaccinations: 0 until 8th December 641,000 by 20th December (Worldindata graph) 945,000 by 27th December (ditto) 1,300,000 (approx) by "this afternoon" of 5th January
So clearly no acceleration whatsoever over the last 4 weeks. I think that's why they have not been making more of the numbers. I would expect the limiting factor to be supplies from Pfizer, since it's hard to believe that there would not have been some acceleration otherwise.
Plus 60,000 new cases per day, that's 100,000 immune people.
The Daily Express this morning reported that one medical centre did 1100 vaccinations yesterday. On the basis of that there are many more than 40-50000 vaccinations being carried out daily in the UK
It is blindingly obvious that there will from this week be many more than 40-50k vaccinations per day being carried out, because now we are in the week that is seeing the rapid rollout of the Oxford vaccine, starting yesterday, being administered from a whole new set of centres coming on stream during the course of this week. My point is only that the data shows that there was previously no acceleration in the month when we were reliant on the Pfizer vaccine alone, which would be unexpected unless there were problems with supply. Indeed, if there was any significant numbers of the Oxford vaccine included in the 1.3 million figure Johnson quoted as of this afternoon, you can infer that there was a more significant falling off of the rate of Pfizer vaccinations after 20th December than is implied by the raw figures.
Why was the meeting on Monday morning knowing that schools were going back that very morning?
Schools going back must have caught him offguard, like the tides rolling in and out or the sun rising in the east.
But he's an Oxford classicist. Wouldn't know which way was north without a servant with a compass, even if it was a sunny day and he knew the date.
Perfectly good guidance for finding North in the Iliad:
"Then he first made a shield, broad and solid, adorning it skilfully everywhere, and setting round it a glittering triple rim, with a silver strap attached. Five layers it had, and he decorated it with subtle art.
On it he showed the earth, sea, sky, the tireless sun and the full moon, and all the constellations that crown the heavens, the Pleiades, Hyades, great Orion, and the Bear, that men also call the Wain, that circles round in its place, never bathing in Ocean’s stream, while gazing warily at Orion."
Why was the meeting on Monday morning knowing that schools were going back that very morning?
Schools going back must have caught him offguard, like the tides rolling in and out or the sun rising in the east.
But he's an Oxford classicist. Wouldn't know which way was north without a servant with a compass, even if it was a sunny day and he knew the date.
Perfectly good guidance for finding North in the Iliad:
"Then he first made a shield, broad and solid, adorning it skilfully everywhere, and setting round it a glittering triple rim, with a silver strap attached. Five layers it had, and he decorated it with subtle art.
On it he showed the earth, sea, sky, the tireless sun and the full moon, and all the constellations that crown the heavens, the Pleiades, Hyades, great Orion, and the Bear, that men also call the Wain, that circles round in its place, never bathing in Ocean’s stream, while gazing warily at Orion."
Quite right at night. Caeli subter labentia signa and all that. But even in the daytime I learnt to tell the north and the rough time when working in the fields as a student, just by observing the movement of the sun. Better than incessanty looking at my watch.
Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said.
Do you seriously believe that the mother and her son's doctor can be put right on this by you and a quick Google search? Astonishing level of ignorance indeed.
The point is that there are different preparations and some work better than others.
The guardian article states he is on epidyolex, the same one we manufacture
The Beeb piec e says "The family of Alfie Dingley want permission to use cannabis oil from the whole plant, which they believe will work better than any legal alternative.
Cannabis is also being grown legally in the UK for another medicine, Epidiolex."
The Graun piece doesn't mention epidyolex at all. The doc says "Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said."
The point is that there are different preparations and some work better than others.
Besides which we will still be importing medecines from the eu so sounds to me like someone at the nhs playing silly buggers because they have an objection to cannabis based drugs more than it is a cannot import situation.
The point is that there are different preparations and some work better than others.
The guardian article states he is on epidyolex, the same one we manufacture
The Beeb piec e says "The family of Alfie Dingley want permission to use cannabis oil from the whole plant, which they believe will work better than any legal alternative.
Cannabis is also being grown legally in the UK for another medicine, Epidiolex."
The Graun piece doesn't mention epidyolex at all. The doc says "Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said."
Yes I was reading the older article from when she was campaigning to get cannabis based drugs legalised instead of the one pasted. However still doesn't ring true that it can't be imported as we will continue to import other medecines from the EU. As I said I suspect its some one in the NHS playing silly buggers
The point is that there are different preparations and some work better than others.
The guardian article states he is on epidyolex, the same one we manufacture
The Beeb piec e says "The family of Alfie Dingley want permission to use cannabis oil from the whole plant, which they believe will work better than any legal alternative.
Cannabis is also being grown legally in the UK for another medicine, Epidiolex."
The Graun piece doesn't mention epidyolex at all. The doc says "Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said."
Yes I was reading the older article from when she was campaigning to get cannabis based drugs legalised instead of the one pasted. However still doesn't ring true that it can't be imported as we will continue to import other medecines from the EU. As I said I suspect its some one in the NHS playing silly buggers
There is, er, a photo of a UK Gmt letter in that Garaun piece, from the DHSC, not the NHS, saying clearly it is down to Brexit.
The point is that there are different preparations and some work better than others.
The guardian article states he is on epidyolex, the same one we manufacture
The Beeb piec e says "The family of Alfie Dingley want permission to use cannabis oil from the whole plant, which they believe will work better than any legal alternative.
Cannabis is also being grown legally in the UK for another medicine, Epidiolex."
The Graun piece doesn't mention epidyolex at all. The doc says "Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said."
Yes I was reading the older article from when she was campaigning to get cannabis based drugs legalised instead of the one pasted. However still doesn't ring true that it can't be imported as we will continue to import other medecines from the EU. As I said I suspect its some one in the NHS playing silly buggers
There is, er, a photo of a UK Gmt letter in that Garaun piece, from the DHSC, not the NHS, saying clearly it is down to Brexit.
This company has a bulk import license for these products and can therefore presumably supply it to his local pharmacist instead of them having to use a personal import license
Why was the meeting on Monday morning knowing that schools were going back that very morning?
Schools going back must have caught him offguard, like the tides rolling in and out or the sun rising in the east.
But he's an Oxford classicist. Wouldn't know which way was north without a servant with a compass, even if it was a sunny day and he knew the date.
Perfectly good guidance for finding North in the Iliad:
"Then he first made a shield, broad and solid, adorning it skilfully everywhere, and setting round it a glittering triple rim, with a silver strap attached. Five layers it had, and he decorated it with subtle art.
On it he showed the earth, sea, sky, the tireless sun and the full moon, and all the constellations that crown the heavens, the Pleiades, Hyades, great Orion, and the Bear, that men also call the Wain, that circles round in its place, never bathing in Ocean’s stream, while gazing warily at Orion."
Quite right at night. Caeli subter labentia signa and all that. But even in the daytime I learnt to tell the north and the rough time when working in the fields as a student, just by observing the movement of the sun. Better than incessanty looking at my watch.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
I had a quick look on gov.uk and it seems that his mum would have needed to have been a British citizen when he was born to transmit it. She naturalized as a US citizen four years earlier and would have taken the usual oath renouncing her "allegiance" to her former country. Now these days, the UK does not recognize any such foreign oath as being enough to lose British citizenship, but back then there was more hostility to dual nationality in both countries than there is today. So it would all depend on whether by the standards of the time, she had lost her British nationality when she became an American. FWIW on balance, and IANAL, I suspect Trump probably is British.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
I had a quick look on gov.uk and it seems that his mum would have needed to have been a British citizen when he was born to transmit it. She naturalized as a US citizen four years earlier and would have taken the usual oath renouncing her "allegiance" to her former country. Now these days, the UK does not recognize any such foreign oath as being enough to lose British citizenship, but back then there was more hostility to dual nationality in both countries than there is today. So it would all depend on whether by the standards of the time, she had lost her British nationality when she became an American. FWIW on balance, and IANAL, I suspect Trump probably is British.
William Joyce tried to renounce his dual nationality back in the day. Didn't work.
Is it even possible to renounce one's British citizenship? Surely it's God-given, absolute and irrevocable.
Shamina Begum coughs ...
Only if you've been very naughty.
Shamina Begum hasn't renounced her citizenship. What the Lord giveth the Home Secretary taketh away.
You certainly can renounce British citizenship. You have to apply to your local British consulate and appear before a consular officer to confirm it's your intention. The FCDO reserves the right to not accept the application and will typically reject it if it would leave you stateless. Similarly, the Home Secretary cannot make someone stateless by removing their British citizenship, but in the case of Shamina Begum, the Home Office claim she would not be as she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
I had a quick look on gov.uk and it seems that his mum would have needed to have been a British citizen when he was born to transmit it. She naturalized as a US citizen four years earlier and would have taken the usual oath renouncing her "allegiance" to her former country. Now these days, the UK does not recognize any such foreign oath as being enough to lose British citizenship, but back then there was more hostility to dual nationality in both countries than there is today. So it would all depend on whether by the standards of the time, she had lost her British nationality when she became an American. FWIW on balance, and IANAL, I suspect Trump probably is British.
William Joyce tried to renounce his dual nationality back in the day. Didn't work.
Indeed, but back then women had fewer rights in this regard than men. Up to c. WW1 women marrying British men automatically received British citizenship, and conversely British women usually lost it if they married a foreign man.
Is it even possible to renounce one's British citizenship? Surely it's God-given, absolute and irrevocable.
Shamina Begum coughs ...
Only if you've been very naughty.
Shamina Begum hasn't renounced her citizenship. What the Lord giveth the Home Secretary taketh away.
You certainly can renounce British citizenship. You have to apply to your local British consulate and appear before a consular officer to confirm it's your intention. The FCDO reserves the right to not accept the application and will typically reject it if it would leave you stateless. Similarly, the Home Secretary cannot make someone stateless by removing their British citizenship, but in the case of Shamina Begum, the Home Office claim she would not be as she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
Citizenship is a pretty convoluted issue indeed. As a bunch of Australian politicians discovered when some of them lost their seats over citizenships they didn't even know they had. So even a government stating someone is not a citizen may not be definitive proof until the legalities are sorted.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
I had a quick look on gov.uk and it seems that his mum would have needed to have been a British citizen when he was born to transmit it. She naturalized as a US citizen four years earlier and would have taken the usual oath renouncing her "allegiance" to her former country. Now these days, the UK does not recognize any such foreign oath as being enough to lose British citizenship, but back then there was more hostility to dual nationality in both countries than there is today. So it would all depend on whether by the standards of the time, she had lost her British nationality when she became an American. FWIW on balance, and IANAL, I suspect Trump probably is British.
Maybe you should have taken a longer look:
"...you’re not automatically a citizen [but] You may be eligible to apply for citizenship if either:
- your parents were not married when you were born - your mother was British, not your father
Your mother or father must have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when you were born. "
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
I had a quick look on gov.uk and it seems that his mum would have needed to have been a British citizen when he was born to transmit it. She naturalized as a US citizen four years earlier and would have taken the usual oath renouncing her "allegiance" to her former country. Now these days, the UK does not recognize any such foreign oath as being enough to lose British citizenship, but back then there was more hostility to dual nationality in both countries than there is today. So it would all depend on whether by the standards of the time, she had lost her British nationality when she became an American. FWIW on balance, and IANAL, I suspect Trump probably is British.
Maybe you should have taken a longer look:
"...you’re not automatically a citizen [but] You may be eligible to apply for citizenship if either:
- your parents were not married when you were born - your mother was British, not your father"
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
@rjps@Chameleon Donald Trump is entitled to seek to register as a British citizen - but he isn’t one now. When Donald Trump was born in 1946, although his mother remained a British subject, she would have been unable to pass on that nationality, as at that time British nationality law was discriminatory in only permitting transmission by descent in the male line (section 1(1)(b) Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914).
To correct the gender discrimination that existed in British nationality law, section 4C of the British Nationality Act provides a route for a person born outside the United Kingdom prior to 1983, where born to a UK-born mother, to apply for registration by entitlement as a British citizen. It is this provision that provides Trump’s route to British citizenship, as it requires former nationality laws to be read to provide for citizenship by descent from a mother, as they provide for citizenship by descent from a father. To succeed Mr. Trump must also satisfy the Secretary of State that he is a man of good character. That’s the test Fayed failed.
Is it even possible to renounce one's British citizenship? Surely it's God-given, absolute and irrevocable.
Shamina Begum coughs ...
Only if you've been very naughty.
Shamina Begum hasn't renounced her citizenship. What the Lord giveth the Home Secretary taketh away.
You certainly can renounce British citizenship. You have to apply to your local British consulate and appear before a consular officer to confirm it's your intention. The FCDO reserves the right to not accept the application and will typically reject it if it would leave you stateless. Similarly, the Home Secretary cannot make someone stateless by removing their British citizenship, but in the case of Shamina Begum, the Home Office claim she would not be as she also holds Bangladeshi citizenship.
Citizenship is a pretty convoluted issue indeed. As a bunch of Australian politicians discovered when some of them lost their seats over citizenships they didn't even know they had. So even a government stating someone is not a citizen may not be definitive proof until the legalities are sorted.
Yes. Was in Oz when the story was breaking. Quite remarkable one can be a citizen of a country you've never been to and be blissfully unaware of the fact till a journalist tells you you have to resign.
Aren't they already suing him? Maybe he is beyond caring?
He'll be in seclusion in Scotland, why should he worry?
Is he terrifically popular in Scotland? I thought there was a problem with a golf club of his.
More his behaviour with the natives at all levels.
The problem is that unless Mr T is genuinely movcing house he can't legally leave the airport - and neither can his entourage, and they can't all be moving house can they? Also he loses diplomatic immunity the next day.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as Trump's mother was born in the United Kingdom, does he not legally possess British citizenship by descent?
He can't just say I'm British and expect to immediately have* the privilages that British citizens "enjoy". He would need to apply for citizenship first.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
> You were born outside the UK British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
I had a quick look on gov.uk and it seems that his mum would have needed to have been a British citizen when he was born to transmit it. She naturalized as a US citizen four years earlier and would have taken the usual oath renouncing her "allegiance" to her former country. Now these days, the UK does not recognize any such foreign oath as being enough to lose British citizenship, but back then there was more hostility to dual nationality in both countries than there is today. So it would all depend on whether by the standards of the time, she had lost her British nationality when she became an American. FWIW on balance, and IANAL, I suspect Trump probably is British.
Maybe you should have taken a longer look:
"...you’re not automatically a citizen [but] You may be eligible to apply for citizenship if either:
- your parents were not married when you were born - your mother was British, not your father"
Also, Mr Trump would be the first to claim he is American without any dilution - he's a birther when it comes to US Presidents' nativities.
Oh please, I doubt he'd care once his not being president was an issue (or someone being president he did not like). He'd make himself a citizen of Richonia if it meant he paid fewer taxes and didn't cause him other issues in the US.
Comments
After he leaves office is a different matter.
0 until 8th December
641,000 by 20th December (Worldindata graph)
945,000 by 27th December (ditto)
1,300,000 (approx) by "this afternoon" of 5th January
So clearly no acceleration whatsoever over the last 4 weeks. I think that's why they have not been making more of the numbers. I would expect the limiting factor to be supplies from Pfizer, since it's hard to believe that there would not have been some acceleration otherwise.
I propose the "Peston, FRS, DipSHit" award - to the journalist who talks the most bollocks about COVID numbers.
https://twitter.com/itsafrogslife/status/1346492076956004353
As seen in this documentary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO2-YxWkRxk
Philip is correct. It is evidence. It might not be statistically significant at the 95% level but it might well be at the 60% level or 75% level.
Because evidence is not significant at the 95% level doesn't mean it is not significant. It just means it is not significant at the 95% level. Nothing more.
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-01-05/students-in-england-will-not-be-asked-to-sit-gcse-and-a-level-exams-this-summer
If Trump is convicted in America he'll end up staying on a military base, as the only prisoner.
Heck, I might not either.
If he is in the UK for the inauguration and charges are immediately filed in the US against him, I understand that there is a room going spare in the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he can evade extradition!
*I reserve the right to deliberately split infinitives.
One idle thought - as schools and colleges are largely closed, couldn't the parts of them not being used for vulnerable kids etc. be used as vaccination centres? Most secondary schools and colleges are pretty spacious and have parking, and there's a lot of them about. More room than GP surgeries.
https://twitter.com/skydavidblevins/status/1346493827641700354
My understanding is that if one of your parents was born in the UK, you are automatically a British citizen, regardless of whether you have a passport or not.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent
> You were born outside the UK
British citizenship is normally automatically passed down one generation to children born outside the UK.
For example, you might automatically become a citizen if you’re born outside the UK to a British parent.
Ergo, unless Trump has renounced his citizenship, he's a British citizen.
Basically, I can draw a straight line through the confidence interval, therefore there is no significant fall.
Edit: and the fall looks straight for seven days because there are only two data points!
But I don't see why it should be impossible for someone to be troubled by the severity of such restrictions but accepting of their necessity at specific times, and also move quicker when the data shows the latter situation is upon us.
Yes, he's troubled by doing it, but on multiple occasions has accepted it is the best option despite that, and those troubles don't require him to drag his feet like on the schools decision. Like many people I would have wanted him to do all he could to keep them open, but as the u-turn so soon after reopening shows (and on this occasion that swiftness shows the u-turn is a negative), he really could have moved quicker there, and allowing his troubles to cause further delay has had negative consequences.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/17.html
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.03.21249169v1.full.pdf
"You may automatically be a British citizen if you were born before 1 January 1983 and:
- you were born outside the UK
- your father is British. "
If you’re not automatically a citizen [but] You may be eligible to apply for citizenship if either:
- your parents were not married when you were born
- your mother was British, not your father
https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent/born-before-1983
Sexist, but there it is.
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1346540350941310976
BBC News - TalkRadio: YouTube reverses decision to ban channel
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55544205
He is on epidyolex
as mention in this quote
"Cannabis is also being grown legally in the UK for another medicine, Epidiolex."
from article
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44197038
It is made by this firm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW_Pharmaceuticals
A british manufacturer.
There is no reason we need to import it
"Then he first made a shield, broad and solid, adorning it skilfully everywhere, and setting round it a glittering triple rim, with a silver strap attached. Five layers it had, and he decorated it with subtle art.
On it he showed the earth, sea, sky, the tireless sun and the full moon, and all the constellations that crown the heavens, the Pleiades, Hyades, great Orion, and the Bear, that men also call the Wain, that circles round in its place, never bathing in Ocean’s stream, while gazing warily at Orion."
Ossoff/Loeffler double @ 17.0 £5
Straight Ossoff @ 1.96 £20
Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said.
Do you seriously believe that the mother and her son's doctor can be put right on this by you and a quick Google search? Astonishing level of ignorance indeed.
I can't form a good picture of the related contingencies of this double contest so am sticking with my guaranteed 10% profit and leaving it at that.
Cannabis is also being grown legally in the UK for another medicine, Epidiolex."
The Graun piece doesn't mention epidyolex at all. The doc says "Neurologist Mike Barnes who led the fight with the Home Office to get Bedrolite prescribed for Alfie accused the DHSC of “an astonishing level of ignorance” to think every cannabis product is the same when there are “147 different cannabinoids” in each plant in addition to terpenes which create very specific medical properties.
“Each variety of cannabis is subtly different and you can’t just swap a child from one product to another,” he said."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/05/us/los-angeles-county-california-human-disaster-covid/index.html
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/01/23/1974085/0/en/AgraFlora-Organics-Receives-Controlled-Drug-License-in-UK.html
This company has a bulk import license for these products and can therefore presumably supply it to his local pharmacist instead of them having to use a personal import license
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glggureA_Kk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s73flj1t38
"...you’re not automatically a citizen [but] You may be eligible to apply for citizenship if either:
- your parents were not married when you were born
- your mother was British, not your father
Your mother or father must have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies when you were born. "
https://www.gov.uk/apply-citizenship-british-parent/born-before-1983
Trump is not a British citizen, and could not apply on the basis if his mother's birth in Britain.
To correct the gender discrimination that existed in British nationality law, section 4C of the British Nationality Act provides a route for a person born outside the United Kingdom prior to 1983, where born to a UK-born mother, to apply for registration by entitlement as a British citizen. It is this provision that provides Trump’s route to British citizenship, as it requires former nationality laws to be read to provide for citizenship by descent from a mother, as they provide for citizenship by descent from a father. To succeed Mr. Trump must also satisfy the Secretary of State that he is a man of good character. That’s the test Fayed failed.