Harry and Meghan 'quit social media for good': Couple will not use sites to promote their Archewell Foundation and will not return to personal accounts due 'to haters', source claims
CNN just announced that Trump has said that if he is impeached, he'll ask Guilliani to defend him. Oh dear.
I hate to offer the man advice, but he really could do better.
"One of the few members of his defense team who said he would stick with the president was Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School emeritus professor who had a secondary role last time. In an email on Saturday, he said he would defend Mr. Trump on free speech grounds"
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I could see Nicola doing this to try and distract from matters on the home front.
There's not really a downside to that for her, though.
Trump's about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit in Scotland, so he'd only be defended by the 'defend the indefensible' rent-a-quotes.
Exactly. Telling us how awful Trump is seems to be occupying just about everyone with access to a keyboard at the present time. I don't think it would save her but it would be widely praised.
There is the whole GlobalScot thang, of course. Conferred by Salmond, asd I am sure she will point out if the subject arises.
Conferred by FM Jack McConnell as it happens. She may of course point this out...
On the one hand, he's not a badly intentioned person and is pursuing some constructive projects. There've been many worse extremely rich men than him. On the other hand, his grandly overbearing ideas are exactly representative of a time in America that has held up masters of capital, Ayn-Rand like, as masters of the universe.
His cars will transforms the performance of entire world's transport sustainability ; he alone can achieve useful breakthroughs in space travel that governments cannot, etc. This isn't a model mainly for the patronage and endowment of the more mundane, daily detail of people's lives ; huge and diverse endowments for education, libraries and the arts and other things, etc, like earlier American magnates.
In fact, high profile givers like Gates aside, most extremely wealthy Americans are in fact overall giving *less* of their money to charity, or directly to their workers, than in the pre-war period. Why should they, in an era and culture that has held them up as near-gods. This billionaire god-worship is part of what Trump emerges from, made even more powerful by the fact that he also appears, in his rhetoric, despite not actually substantially doing so, to be confronting the socio-economic realities that many American politicians simply don't get. That's an awesomely powerful combination in modern America.
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I'm a keen fan of a certain genre of music. There are regularly stories of European bands falling foul of visa problems when trying to play the US, and vice versa. Yes, of course many bands successfully navigate the paperwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't an obstacle for some. Big bands can afford the hassle; smaller acts can't.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
I would suggest that there are two or three things we need to do to help.
Firstly, as a society, we need to make sure we add sufficient value to pay our way. At the moment we don't. We need to boost productivity, investment, skills, innovation and creativity. This pays the bills.
Secondly, we need to be clear that that surplus is not just for the talented few who make it but requires to be distributed through society. This means higher taxes although the mobility of those on high earnings is an issue.
Thirdly, we have to accept that a lot of jobs have to be subsidised. Of course we do a fair bit of that already through WFTC and the like (which would no doubt help the Simpsons if the US had something similar). We do a lot of this already of course but we moan about it rather a lot. We are going to have to do more.
Fourthly, I think we need to be a bit more practical about what we teach even our less able citizens. We need to focus on things that are going to make them employable in this ever more competitive world. So they need to learn maths, computing, data processing, engineering, joinery, electronics, skills that are much more focused on jobs. We need to stop spending so much on social sciences, the arts, and many of the other subjects taught at school and university, except for the elite who can make it in these areas. On one view we need to stop being so self indulgent.
I think we need to massively promote FE colleges as an alternative to Universities, and a good route to future employment. I would call these elite FE colleges 'The Ivy League' (obviously borrowing from the US - I know that over there the term refers to their Oxbridge type Universities), and I would envisage a big sporting side, and even preppy uniforms (blazers and slacks) just to emphasise the difference. I think a lot of kids would like this.
Technically, The Ivy League is a sporting term: it refers to a group of universities that play against each other in certain college level sports.
Thanks for the info - I wasn't aware.
It's a bit of trivia really: the way you used the term is how most people would understand it.
CNN just announced that Trump has said that if he is impeached, he'll ask Guilliani to defend him. Oh dear.
I hate to offer the man advice, but he really could do better.
"One of the few members of his defense team who said he would stick with the president was Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School emeritus professor who had a secondary role last time. In an email on Saturday, he said he would defend Mr. Trump on free speech grounds"
NYTimes
Those are important grounds indeed, though I would hope saying that people should go to the Capitol and that somebody needed to do something to stop the certification stealing the election would not be covered.
I would suggest that there are two or three things we need to do to help.
Firstly, as a society, we need to make sure we add sufficient value to pay our way. At the moment we don't. We need to boost productivity, investment, skills, innovation and creativity. This pays the bills.
Secondly, we need to be clear that that surplus is not just for the talented few who make it but requires to be distributed through society. This means higher taxes although the mobility of those on high earnings is an issue.
Thirdly, we have to accept that a lot of jobs have to be subsidised. Of course we do a fair bit of that already through WFTC and the like (which would no doubt help the Simpsons if the US had something similar). We do a lot of this already of course but we moan about it rather a lot. We are going to have to do more.
Fourthly, I think we need to be a bit more practical about what we teach even our less able citizens. We need to focus on things that are going to make them employable in this ever more competitive world. So they need to learn maths, computing, data processing, engineering, joinery, electronics, skills that are much more focused on jobs. We need to stop spending so much on social sciences, the arts, and many of the other subjects taught at school and university, except for the elite who can make it in these areas. On one view we need to stop being so self indulgent.
The arts are one sector where arguably Britain has a competitive advantage and much to offer. I'm not thinking just of the famous artists but all the many skills and trades that go into it. Silly to throw that away.
Arguably a lot of data processing, engineering and computing jobs will be done by robots. Train people for those sorts of jobs and it might end up being the equivalent of training people to work in Manchester mills just as those industries were moving to the Third World.
Agree with your general points though. I think we also need to be a lot less snobbish about some jobs. The key workers this last year have been people doing jobs that in other times a lot of people have disregarded and underpaid and have not wanted for their own children.
I agree at the elite end the arts are a significant money maker for the UK but, to take an example, my niece did a degree in stage management. She is now quite a successful manager in Tesco's but she freely admits that she got nothing out of her degree other than quite a lot of fun. There is a very long and unproductive tail to the likes of the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
Highly doubtful even Putinists will want to be associate with these guys anytime this decade, if not longer (and I think will be forever). For one thing, will be plenty of other options who did NOT go quite so far.
At least Calm Down Cruz has the sense to keep his fool trap shut for a bit, or at least is curbing his enthusiasm.
Whereas Bloody Hands Hawley keeps on whinning about how he did he right thing and is being persecuted for it.
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
Not sure what you mean, France and the UK were in the EU, so could work and tour anywhere in the eu. US wasn't, so couldn't.
Gosh let me fetch my crayons as you appear to be hard of thinking.
What is hard to understand?
US bands regulary tour the eu or UK after filling in the paperwork
why do you think EU bands or UK bands are incapable of filling in the same paperwork because it is all that necessary. Despite the crying no one has been banned from touring just do some paperwork first it isn't rocket science. Nothing will stop band's that want to tour apart from a few damn forms it isn't the end of the world.
Probably what most of these are concerned about is that they could tour due to cultural exchange programs which subsidised the tour and now cant because they wouldn't make any money because frankly the few that actually want to hear them won't pay enough to make it viable. A bit like opera or ballet really
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I'm a keen fan of a certain genre of music. There are regularly stories of European bands falling foul of visa problems when trying to play the US, and vice versa. Yes, of course many bands successfully navigate the paperwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't an obstacle for some. Big bands can afford the hassle; smaller acts can't.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
But if the paperwork is a problem - it's highly likely someone will automate it away with a program / bot that asks the questions that need to be answered.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
I certainly agree with this last point, but the way to tackle that has to be to tax and regulate extremem wealth surely?
One other issue we all have to face into is that it's irrational to expect incomes to go on increasing forever. There are not resources enough on the earth for us all to have super-yachts; we cannot all live in mansions.
I am not sure what the answer is. Obviously, for a whole host of reasons attached to my wider Libertarian views, I don't necessarily regard the Government as being the best organisation to deal with these things. Indeed the case of the super rich like Gates, Musk and perhaps Bezos is a case in point. They have made their money primarily from the Middle Classes. They have also got enough of a social conscience to realise that that money needs to be put to good use for mankind. So we have Gates spending vast amounts on solving third world medical problems and Musk looking out to the stars and a future for mankind on other worlds. No one would claim they are being greedy or evil in what they are doing but they are arguably acting like proxy Governments taxing the US Middle Classes to redistribute the wealth to areas they think are of benefit to mankind. Is this the right way to do things? I would suggest that is debatable.
The case of Musk is interesting.
In the field of space - the government program smoothly, steadily did less and less for more and more. The final insult in this progression is the SLS aka the Senate Launch System. Then along comes Musk and actually reduces prices - for increasing capability.
In the field of ZEV vehicles - governments haven been talking about them for decades. Furrowed brows and billions. A handful off barely usable prototypes result. Along comes Musk and start building them by the 100K. Refuelling an issue? Build a worldwide network of chargers....
In both cases, this is because his goals conflicted with those chosen by the government.
In space, the government wanted a vast sum of money to be distributed among the States according to politics pegging order. The actual throwing things upstairs bit was a minor by-product to them. So steadily inflating programs that did less and less were *good* - less chance of a failure to annoy the public.... Musk just wanted to make launch cheaper....
On ZEVs - government are hooked on oil worse than hillbillies on Oxy. Plus they didn't want electric vehicles, they want hydrogen - easier to tax and it props up the oil companies who were supposed to pivot into hydrogen. Musk just wanted to make electric cars cheaper and cheaper....
Personally, I think relying on the whims of our new aristocrats for public goods, is not a sound system. Indeed we had to get rid of such a system from old aristocrats not that long ago.
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I'm a keen fan of a certain genre of music. There are regularly stories of European bands falling foul of visa problems when trying to play the US, and vice versa. Yes, of course many bands successfully navigate the paperwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't an obstacle for some. Big bands can afford the hassle; smaller acts can't.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
Whereby EU bands touring the UK only need the one visa, whereas UK bands touring EU need one for each country they want to perform in, as there's no EU wide work visa.
While William Jennings Bryan NEVER attempted to overthrow the Constitution, and indeed conceded (if not happily) THREE presidential election loses (a record for an actual nominee) there are a number of similarities between WSJ and DJT
> both excellent orators whose style and substance was WAY more appreciated by the unwashed masses of roll-over / fly-over country, than by the urban sophisticates of New York, Boston and Emporia, Kansas.
> both advocated major reforms of established economic and political systems and policies, naturally opposed by the establishment (except those who saw ways to profit from populism).
> both engendered strong personal loyalty from the followers, and fear & loathing from opponents
> both entertained strong personal beliefs appealing to their base but offputing to others (such as anti-evolutionism for Bryan)
> both began their political careers in one state (Nebraska for Bryan, New York for Trumpsky) but ended up moving to Florida
> both in their own unique ways were fashion trend-setters (Bryan the Palm Beach suit, Trumpsky the MAGA hat)
> both engaged in rather dubious property dealings (WJB in Florida real estate boom, DJT too many to mention)
Very good. And do you believe he is Baum’s lion, despite denial of the political metaphors?
While I think there may be something to the WOZ = Populist fable idea, doubt that Bryan was the Cowardly Lion.
Mostly because it doesn't seem to make much sense for a Populist like Baum to think of WJB in those terms in 1900, when Bryan ran a second time (just as passionately as the first) AND when the book was first published.
Yeah but, if the cowardly lion could have the courage of his convictions, he could be the big beast in the jungle 🦁
In the novel Dotty had silver shoes up the golden runway. How the move to silver standard would help the tin and straw men out west.
It’s about a credible denial as Floyd claiming Dark Side of the Moon is just a series of coincidences.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
I certainly agree with this last point, but the way to tackle that has to be to tax and regulate extremem wealth surely?
One other issue we all have to face into is that it's irrational to expect incomes to go on increasing forever. There are not resources enough on the earth for us all to have super-yachts; we cannot all live in mansions.
I am not sure what the answer is. Obviously, for a whole host of reasons attached to my wider Libertarian views, I don't necessarily regard the Government as being the best organisation to deal with these things. Indeed the case of the super rich like Gates, Musk and perhaps Bezos is a case in point. They have made their money primarily from the Middle Classes. They have also got enough of a social conscience to realise that that money needs to be put to good use for mankind. So we have Gates spending vast amounts on solving third world medical problems and Musk looking out to the stars and a future for mankind on other worlds. No one would claim they are being greedy or evil in what they are doing but they are arguably acting like proxy Governments taxing the US Middle Classes to redistribute the wealth to areas they think are of benefit to mankind. Is this the right way to do things? I would suggest that is debatable.
The case of Musk is interesting.
In the field of space - the government program smoothly, steadily did less and less for more and more. The final insult in this progression is the SLS aka the Senate Launch System. Then along comes Musk and actually reduces prices - for increasing capability.
In the field of ZEV vehicles - governments haven been talking about them for decades. Furrowed brows and billions. A handful off barely usable prototypes result. Along comes Musk and start building them by the 100K. Refuelling an issue? Build a worldwide network of chargers....
In both cases, this is because his goals conflicted with those chosen by the government.
In space, the government wanted a vast sum of money to be distributed among the States according to politics pegging order. The actual throwing things upstairs bit was a minor by-product to them. So steadily inflating programs that did less and less were *good* - less chance of a failure to annoy the public.... Musk just wanted to make launch cheaper....
On ZEVs - government are hooked on oil worse than hillbillies on Oxy. Plus they didn't want electric vehicles, they want hydrogen - easier to tax and it props up the oil companies who were supposed to pivot into hydrogen. Musk just wanted to make electric cars cheaper and cheaper....
Personally, I think relying on the whims of our new aristocrats for public goods, is not a sound system. Indeed we had to get rid of such a system from old aristocrats not that long ago.
True - the problem is that the government has carefully, and successfully avoided delivering solutions.
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I'm a keen fan of a certain genre of music. There are regularly stories of European bands falling foul of visa problems when trying to play the US, and vice versa. Yes, of course many bands successfully navigate the paperwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't an obstacle for some. Big bands can afford the hassle; smaller acts can't.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
But if the paperwork is a problem - it's highly likely someone will automate it away with a program / bot that asks the questions that need to be answered.
I have certainly seen plenty of small american bands here
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
Not sure what you mean, France and the UK were in the EU, so could work and tour anywhere in the eu. US wasn't, so couldn't.
Gosh let me fetch my crayons as you appear to be hard of thinking.
What is hard to understand?
US bands regulary tour the eu or UK after filling in the paperwork
why do you think EU bands or UK bands are incapable of filling in the same paperwork because it is all that necessary. Despite the crying no one has been banned from touring just do some paperwork first it isn't rocket science. Nothing will stop band's that want to tour apart from a few damn forms it isn't the end of the world.
Probably what most of these are concerned about is that they could tour due to cultural exchange programs which subsidised the tour and now cant because they wouldn't make any money because frankly the few that actually want to hear them won't pay enough to make it viable. A bit like opera or ballet really
There's no need to be nasty about it, I was only seeking clarification from an expert.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
I would suggest that there are two or three things we need to do to help.
Firstly, as a society, we need to make sure we add sufficient value to pay our way. At the moment we don't. We need to boost productivity, investment, skills, innovation and creativity. This pays the bills.
Secondly, we need to be clear that that surplus is not just for the talented few who make it but requires to be distributed through society. This means higher taxes although the mobility of those on high earnings is an issue.
Thirdly, we have to accept that a lot of jobs have to be subsidised. Of course we do a fair bit of that already through WFTC and the like (which would no doubt help the Simpsons if the US had something similar). We do a lot of this already of course but we moan about it rather a lot. We are going to have to do more.
Fourthly, I think we need to be a bit more practical about what we teach even our less able citizens. We need to focus on things that are going to make them employable in this ever more competitive world. So they need to learn maths, computing, data processing, engineering, joinery, electronics, skills that are much more focused on jobs. We need to stop spending so much on social sciences, the arts, and many of the other subjects taught at school and university, except for the elite who can make it in these areas. On one view we need to stop being so self indulgent.
I think we need to massively promote FE colleges as an alternative to Universities, and a good route to future employment. I would call these elite FE colleges 'The Ivy League' (obviously borrowing from the US - I know that over there the term refers to their Oxbridge type Universities), and I would envisage a big sporting side, and even preppy uniforms (blazers and slacks) just to emphasise the difference. I think a lot of kids would like this.
Technically, The Ivy League is a sporting term: it refers to a group of universities that play against each other in certain college level sports.
Universities in Ivy League: Brown University (Providence, RI) Columbia University (New York, NY) Cornell University (Ithaca NY) Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH) Harvard University (Cambridge, MA) University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) Princeton University (Princeton, NJ) Yale University (New Haven, CN)
Also note the Seven Sisters colleges Barnard College (New York, NY) Bryn Mawr College (Bryn Mawr) Mount Holyoke College (South Hadley, MA) Radcliffe College (Cambridge, MA) Vassar College (Poughkeepsie, NY) Smith College (Northhampton, MA) Wellesley College (Wellesley, MA)
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
They are both clever. Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard law school where he graduated magna cum laude.
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
Besides accepting the fine probably counts as an admission of guilt. Tell them to take you to court if they think you guilty and they will probably back down
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
As for outrageous, I criticise the police overstepping their bounds plenty, and they will no doubt fine people not in breach of the law by mistake, but they are trying to carry out the law so I wouldn't blame them for the outrageousness of the law.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
They are both clever. Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard law school where he graduated magna cum laude.
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Clearly not enough to know which way the wind blows.
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
The NHS isn't just doctors and nurses of course.
True - total roll is 1.4 million. But what percentage of that are people who get close to patients? Like any other organisation, the NHS has a big back office to provide services to the sharp end. And needs it.
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
I suspect it’s because one crinkly in intensive care ties up multiple frontline NHS staff, plus they’re more likely to need hospitalisation if they get the disease.
But I’m not an epidemiologist so could be well off the mark.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
Yes at least they had the sense to do the NHS and care home staff at the same time as the very old. Should be essential shop workers, teachers, bus drivers and so on next though.
Many of the vaccinations so far won't actually help much with containing the virus in the short term, because it's people who would have stayed at home anyway. They might even be counterproductive if people now start heading out with partial protection.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
They are both clever. Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard law school where he graduated magna cum laude.
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Being well educated doesn't make you clever in political terms. There are, I am sure, high IQ individuals who are politically useless and vice versa. Hawley is a twit politically, although no doubt good at exams etc.
Both Hawlet and Cruz made the same mistake but Hawley is doubling down by whining about his book deal, while Cruz is shutting his mouth and will probably escape the wreckage.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
We have had far too many incidents of police believing that people are in breach of the law when any one with half an ounce of common sense would think they werent breaching it though to put trust in what the police think.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
'Rules' is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline.
The laws are onerous, no doubt. Whether they are justified is moot here.
However, police should only be handing out fines where there is clear evidence of laws broken.
Not guidelines. Not what the police *think* shouldn't be happening. Not two girls out having a walk by a reservoir.
While William Jennings Bryan NEVER attempted to overthrow the Constitution, and indeed conceded (if not happily) THREE presidential election loses (a record for an actual nominee) there are a number of similarities between WSJ and DJT
> both excellent orators whose style and substance was WAY more appreciated by the unwashed masses of roll-over / fly-over country, than by the urban sophisticates of New York, Boston and Emporia, Kansas.
> both advocated major reforms of established economic and political systems and policies, naturally opposed by the establishment (except those who saw ways to profit from populism).
> both engendered strong personal loyalty from the followers, and fear & loathing from opponents
> both entertained strong personal beliefs appealing to their base but offputing to others (such as anti-evolutionism for Bryan)
> both began their political careers in one state (Nebraska for Bryan, New York for Trumpsky) but ended up moving to Florida
> both in their own unique ways were fashion trend-setters (Bryan the Palm Beach suit, Trumpsky the MAGA hat)
> both engaged in rather dubious property dealings (WJB in Florida real estate boom, DJT too many to mention)
William Jennings Bryan was involved in the trial of the. century (The Scopes Monkey Trial as seen in the films and plays 'Inherit The Wind')
Give it time and Trump might also feature in the trial of the century, although probably not as lead prosecutor.
Full disclosure, it was Inherit The Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Twelve Angry Men that got me hooked on the law as a child.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
We have had far too many incidents of police believing that people are in breach of the law when any one with half an ounce of common sense would think they werent breaching it though to put trust in what the police think.
True, given the rozzers seem to believe nicking a couple of blondes for having a cup of tea while walking in the countryside is fair game.
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
The NHS isn't just doctors and nurses of course.
True - total roll is 1.4 million. But what percentage of that are people who get close to patients? Like any other organisation, the NHS has a big back office to provide services to the sharp end. And needs it.
Very true. I was thinking more of porters, cleaners, ambulance staff, occupational therapists, physios and the like who do get up close and personal.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Plenty of shit jobs in the UK are really, really attractive to people from overseas.
For those with a good sense of humour, the discovery that Polish people were signing up to the new Northern Ireland Police Service in noticeable numbers was a blessing.
Sein Fein had successfully argued, previously, that non-catholic, non-protestants should be counted as protestants for the 50-50 quota thing.
So you have Protestant Hindus, Protestant Muslims, and Protestant Atheists in the PSNI.
The problem with the Polish types was that they weren't locals. Even though, they were pretty much all Catholics.....
So, after some discussion, they were counted in the Protestant quota.
So, in Northern Ireland, we have Protestant Catholics.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I wonder whether many cops know or care what the law is. I mean, who does?
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I wonder whether many cops know or care what the law is. I mean, who does?
There are however plenty of good cops, the trouble is there are also those that get carried away with bossing people around. The trouble is they band together and the wrong sort rarely get weeded out
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
They are both clever. Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard law school where he graduated magna cum laude.
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Clearly not enough to know which way the wind blows.
And both Cruz and Hawley clerked for Chief Justices - Rehnquist and Roberts respectively.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
Harry and Meghan 'quit social media for good': Couple will not use sites to promote their Archewell Foundation and will not return to personal accounts due 'to haters', source claims
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
As for outrageous, I criticise the police overstepping their bounds plenty, and they will no doubt fine people not in breach of the law by mistake, but they are trying to carry out the law so I wouldn't blame them for the outrageousness of the law.
The police are not legally entitled to do this. If you are out taking exercise, there is no limit in the rules on the amount of time you are allowed to be out. Simply sitting down on a park bench in the middle of your exercise does not put you in breach.
I did just that before embarking on a short hill climb this afternoon, as I had got a bit breathless (I know, I need to get fitter) but if some officious policeman had ordered me to leave I'm sure I'd have had enough breath to give him a lesson on the law.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I wonder whether many cops know or care what the law is. I mean, who does?
There are however plenty of good cops, the trouble is there are also those that get carried away with bossing people around. The trouble is they band together and the wrong sort rarely get weeded out
One thing I have sadly realised from this horrible saga is that people really like bossing other people around. I find it rather chilling.
While William Jennings Bryan NEVER attempted to overthrow the Constitution, and indeed conceded (if not happily) THREE presidential election loses (a record for an actual nominee) there are a number of similarities between WSJ and DJT
> both excellent orators whose style and substance was WAY more appreciated by the unwashed masses of roll-over / fly-over country, than by the urban sophisticates of New York, Boston and Emporia, Kansas.
> both advocated major reforms of established economic and political systems and policies, naturally opposed by the establishment (except those who saw ways to profit from populism).
> both engendered strong personal loyalty from the followers, and fear & loathing from opponents
> both entertained strong personal beliefs appealing to their base but offputing to others (such as anti-evolutionism for Bryan)
> both began their political careers in one state (Nebraska for Bryan, New York for Trumpsky) but ended up moving to Florida
> both in their own unique ways were fashion trend-setters (Bryan the Palm Beach suit, Trumpsky the MAGA hat)
> both engaged in rather dubious property dealings (WJB in Florida real estate boom, DJT too many to mention)
William Jennings Bryan was involved in the trial of the. century (The Scopes Monkey Trial as seen in the films and plays 'Inherit The Wind')
Give it time and Trump might also feature in the trial of the century, although probably not as lead prosecutor.
Full disclosure, it was Inherit The Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Twelve Angry Men that got me hooked on the law as a child.
"Inherit the Wind" is a great play, but also a real hatchet job on William Jennings Bryan - do NOT accept it as biography.
BTW, one of WJB's fellow attorney's for the State of Tennessee against Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was Sue K. Hicks, who was a personal friend of Scopes and a man whose mother had died in childbirth, and was named by his father in her memory.
Story is that the writer of the song, the multi-talented Shel Silverstein, had once encountered the real "Boy Named Sue" during a legal case or somesuch.
Anyway, glad it was part of your inspiration to be a legal eagle. ONLY wish you were making SOME progress re: West West Virginia matter.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
We have had far too many incidents of police believing that people are in breach of the law when any one with half an ounce of common sense would think they werent breaching it though to put trust in what the police think.
That's why I am least glad that in my area, and I presume others, the fines are automatically reviewed. I don't particularly trust the police to know and understand the limitations of the authority given to them either. However the particular accusation was abotu them fining people who don't break the law, when what the headline seemed to suggest was fining people who break the law. They might well make a mistake in that, and that would be wrong, but it is not quite the same thing to get outraged at as suggested.
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
The NHS isn't just doctors and nurses of course.
True - total roll is 1.4 million. But what percentage of that are people who get close to patients? Like any other organisation, the NHS has a big back office to provide services to the sharp end. And needs it.
Very true. I was thinking more of porters, cleaners, ambulance staff, occupational therapists, physios and the like who do get up close and personal.
Absolutely - which is why some breakdown of occupation would be interesting, in addition to possesion of an NHS staff badge.
I am quite sure that some back office types have been.... edging the queue...
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
Besides accepting the fine probably counts as an admission of guilt. Tell them to take you to court if they think you guilty and they will probably back down
Most cops are lazy, stupid and, latterly, quite fat. If you're not going to incriminate yourself then they usually can't be bothered.
Hence the 'How fast were you going?' question when pulled for speeding.
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
Because of an ill-informed belief that vaccinating the vulnerable is the quickest way to solve the crisis, when in fact it's vaccinating the key workers (with the most contacts) to contain the spread of the virus.
As of the 1.3 million vaccinated (as of Sunday), 780K (60%) were under 80.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
what % of toffs like Lord Patten a high Tory have received jabs
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
As for outrageous, I criticise the police overstepping their bounds plenty, and they will no doubt fine people not in breach of the law by mistake, but they are trying to carry out the law so I wouldn't blame them for the outrageousness of the law.
The police are not legally entitled to do this. If you are out taking exercise, there is no limit in the rules on the amount of time you are allowed to be out. Simply sitting down on a park bench in the middle of your exercise does not put you in breach.
I did just that before embarking on a short hill climb this afternoon, as I had got a bit breathless (I know, I need to get fitter) but if some officious policeman had ordered me to leave I'm sure I'd have had enough breath to give him a lesson on the law.
Be careful from my experience pointing out what the law actually says to a police officer can be construed as causing a breach of the peace in some of their minds
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I'm a keen fan of a certain genre of music. There are regularly stories of European bands falling foul of visa problems when trying to play the US, and vice versa. Yes, of course many bands successfully navigate the paperwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't an obstacle for some. Big bands can afford the hassle; smaller acts can't.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
But if the paperwork is a problem - it's highly likely someone will automate it away with a program / bot that asks the questions that need to be answered.
I have certainly seen plenty of small american bands here
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Plenty of shit jobs in the UK are really, really attractive to people from overseas.
For those with a good sense of humour, the discovery that Polish people were signing up to the new Northern Ireland Police Service in noticeable numbers was a blessing.
Sein Fein had successfully argued, previously, that non-catholic, non-protestants should be counted as protestants for the 50-50 quota thing.
So you have Protestant Hindus, Protestant Muslims, and Protestant Atheists in the PSNI.
The problem with the Polish types was that they weren't locals. Even though, they were pretty much all Catholics.....
So, after some discussion, they were counted in the Protestant quota.
So, in Northern Ireland, we have Protestant Catholics.
The Irish have been mad for a long time. Unfortunately we are catching up fast.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
I certainly agree with this last point, but the way to tackle that has to be to tax and regulate extremem wealth surely?
One other issue we all have to face into is that it's irrational to expect incomes to go on increasing forever. There are not resources enough on the earth for us all to have super-yachts; we cannot all live in mansions.
I am not sure what the answer is. Obviously, for a whole host of reasons attached to my wider Libertarian views, I don't necessarily regard the Government as being the best organisation to deal with these things. Indeed the case of the super rich like Gates, Musk and perhaps Bezos is a case in point. They have made their money primarily from the Middle Classes. They have also got enough of a social conscience to realise that that money needs to be put to good use for mankind. So we have Gates spending vast amounts on solving third world medical problems and Musk looking out to the stars and a future for mankind on other worlds. No one would claim they are being greedy or evil in what they are doing but they are arguably acting like proxy Governments taxing the US Middle Classes to redistribute the wealth to areas they think are of benefit to mankind. Is this the right way to do things? I would suggest that is debatable.
The case of Musk is interesting.
In the field of space - the government program smoothly, steadily did less and less for more and more. The final insult in this progression is the SLS aka the Senate Launch System. Then along comes Musk and actually reduces prices - for increasing capability.
In the field of ZEV vehicles - governments haven been talking about them for decades. Furrowed brows and billions. A handful off barely usable prototypes result. Along comes Musk and start building them by the 100K. Refuelling an issue? Build a worldwide network of chargers....
In both cases, this is because his goals conflicted with those chosen by the government.
In space, the government wanted a vast sum of money to be distributed among the States according to politics pegging order. The actual throwing things upstairs bit was a minor by-product to them. So steadily inflating programs that did less and less were *good* - less chance of a failure to annoy the public.... Musk just wanted to make launch cheaper....
On ZEVs - government are hooked on oil worse than hillbillies on Oxy. Plus they didn't want electric vehicles, they want hydrogen - easier to tax and it props up the oil companies who were supposed to pivot into hydrogen. Musk just wanted to make electric cars cheaper and cheaper....
Personally, I think relying on the whims of our new aristocrats for public goods, is not a sound system. Indeed we had to get rid of such a system from old aristocrats not that long ago.
Isn't that how we built all our railways, for example?
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
👍 Quite right.
Just make sure that when they ask you "what kind of coffee is that?" - you answer
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
And yet - it's still easier to immigrate there than the other way round, so I know more transatlantic couples now settled in the US than in Europe.
Why didn't we vaccinate frontline NHS first and tell 80+ to continue to shield for another month?
I suspect it’s because one crinkly in intensive care ties up multiple frontline NHS staff, plus they’re more likely to need hospitalisation if they get the disease.
But I’m not an epidemiologist so could be well off the mark.
One of the practical issues is that being immunised (particularly so single dosed) does not exempt from isolation as a contact.
A fair number of our staff who are off covid sick are off with long covid, or psychological distress rather than acute covid. We have about 4% of staff off covid sick, but more in some front line areas.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
As for outrageous, I criticise the police overstepping their bounds plenty, and they will no doubt fine people not in breach of the law by mistake, but they are trying to carry out the law so I wouldn't blame them for the outrageousness of the law.
The police are not legally entitled to do this. If you are out taking exercise, there is no limit in the rules on the amount of time you are allowed to be out. Simply sitting down on a park bench in the middle of your exercise does not put you in breach.
I did just that before embarking on a short hill climb this afternoon, as I had got a bit breathless (I know, I need to get fitter) but if some officious policeman had ordered me to leave I'm sure I'd have had enough breath to give him a lesson on the law.
I was going by the headline about issuing fines where they believe people to be in breach of the law. Outrage at them getting what the law is wrong I am totally on board with, it infuriates me that the police still mess up what is permitted or not, however the principle of finding people for breaches is acceptable, which was my point. They just need to get that part right.
If people are angry at the police being able to fine people for breaches, that is an issue with the law, and therefore parliament. If people are angry at the police getting what the law is wrong as they seek to fine people, that is an issue with the police. (People could be mad at both of course).
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Plenty of shit jobs in the UK are really, really attractive to people from overseas.
For those with a good sense of humour, the discovery that Polish people were signing up to the new Northern Ireland Police Service in noticeable numbers was a blessing.
Sein Fein had successfully argued, previously, that non-catholic, non-protestants should be counted as protestants for the 50-50 quota thing.
So you have Protestant Hindus, Protestant Muslims, and Protestant Atheists in the PSNI.
The problem with the Polish types was that they weren't locals. Even though, they were pretty much all Catholics.....
So, after some discussion, they were counted in the Protestant quota.
So, in Northern Ireland, we have Protestant Catholics.
Would make more sense IF they were Czech Catholics!
Read something once while back, about a Jewish kid who grew up in Belfast (one of the leafier bits) who was accosted on the street one fine day and asked, are you Catholic or Protestant.
I'm a Jew, he replied
Ok, then, was the rather puzzled response, are yez a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?
Thinking quickly, and taking what he could surmise about his questioners, he swallowed hard and answered, I'm a Protestant Jew.
Which fortunately for him proved to be he right answer.
Yet non eu bands small and large have been able to tour in the uk with no problems over the years without free movement sounds like luvvie whinging to me
I suspect non-eu bands have been touring, but I bet they had to do the paperwork and permits first.
And why can say american bands manage that but some french band can't? Or some english band do it....can't be eu rules as eu rules were the same for much of the time as we were in the eu most of the last 20 years
I'm a keen fan of a certain genre of music. There are regularly stories of European bands falling foul of visa problems when trying to play the US, and vice versa. Yes, of course many bands successfully navigate the paperwork, but that doesn't mean it isn't an obstacle for some. Big bands can afford the hassle; smaller acts can't.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
But if the paperwork is a problem - it's highly likely someone will automate it away with a program / bot that asks the questions that need to be answered.
I have certainly seen plenty of small american bands here
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Plenty of shit jobs in the UK are really, really attractive to people from overseas.
For those with a good sense of humour, the discovery that Polish people were signing up to the new Northern Ireland Police Service in noticeable numbers was a blessing.
Sein Fein had successfully argued, previously, that non-catholic, non-protestants should be counted as protestants for the 50-50 quota thing.
So you have Protestant Hindus, Protestant Muslims, and Protestant Atheists in the PSNI.
The problem with the Polish types was that they weren't locals. Even though, they were pretty much all Catholics.....
So, after some discussion, they were counted in the Protestant quota.
So, in Northern Ireland, we have Protestant Catholics.
The Irish have been mad for a long time. Unfortunately we are catching up fast.
I love this kind of madness - more of it please. Bring it!
In case you don't know, there is an old NI joke... the punchline goes
"to be sure, to be sure. But are you a Protestant Hindu or a Catholic Hindu?"
When you are legislating jokes.... well, people stop dying.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Indeed, Which is part of America's problem. It now attracts people from Africa, and LatAm, that many Americans, I fear, would rather not have as immigrants, and the enriching flow of mass immigration from more sophisticated societies has largely stopped.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
What law would this be exactly?
I really think people are missing my point and I don't understand why. Some people appear to be objecting to the very principle of the police issuing fines at all, when we know that people are indeed fined for Covid-19 breaches legitimately. I'm saying that having a problem with the police for that is looking in the wrong place.
The police wrongly issuing fines is absolutely their fault, which is why I am glad the fines are reviewed, though they should get it right in the first place.
I don't see what is controversial about that. Parliament has given the police a lot of power, and people can be mad at that, but they have been given it. The police, however, need to utilise that power correctly.
From these responses people seem to be arguing against a non-position that it is ok for them to fine people incorrectly, and no one is suggesing that.
By the way, there's a really interesting question that's kind of hidden.
Are there any developed, first world, countries that have maintained near full employment and managed to avoid blown out inequality in the last 20 years?
And the answer is yes, there are quite a few.
Best of all, they share some fairly similar policies, albeit none that are being promoted by either the Democrats or the Republicans.
The most obvious country is Switzerland.
It has incredibly onerous environmental legislation, a really expensive currency, and free trade agreements with all, including China.
It also has a thriving domestic manufacturing sector, from consumer goods all the way through to high tech. And full employment.
Indeed, if you were to look at Swiss policy, you would assume it would be getting massacred by China, Eastern Europe, etc., when it's actually thriving.
Why?
Because Switzerland has a fabulous educational system that emphasises vocational learning for those not going to higher education. (All the first would countries that have done well have really good vocational training - see Singapore, Norway and Germany.)
Switzerland also has high household savings rates: this means that banks profits are based around lending to local businesses, rather than to 25%+ APR credit card customers. (Every other first world country - except Australia that had the mining boom - that's done well also has high household savings rates.)
Harry and Meghan 'quit social media for good': Couple will not use sites to promote their Archewell Foundation and will not return to personal accounts due 'to haters', source claims
Diana would try and avoid the press - to a certain extent. IIRC it was one of her bodyguards who, after repeatedly changing the itinerary to avoid the press, who found her phoning the photographers to make sure she got snapped running out of a building....
I'd best print my essential worker letter from last time around then.
Those colleagues of mine who need to be out and about have all had updated risk assessments and key worker letters. I've heard of people being turned away from Council offices and buildings for not having the correct documentation as well as more frequent examples of people being stopped by the Police.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
What law would this be exactly?
I really think people are missing my point and I don't understand why. Some people appear to be objecting to the very principle of the police issuing fines at all, when we know that people are indeed fined for Covid-19 breaches legitimately. I'm saying that having a problem with the police for that is looking in the wrong place.
The police wrongly issuing fines is absolutely their fault, which is why I am glad the fines are reviewed, though they should get it right in the first place.
I don't see what is controversial about that. Parliament has given the police a lot of power, and people can be mad at that, but they have been given it. The police, however, need to utilise that power correctly.
From these responses people seem to be arguing against a non-position that it is ok for them to fine people incorrectly, and no one is suggesing that.
I think that the police should not be allowed to issue fines full stop.
I think the police some of them often overstep their bounds and don't know the law. Ask any photographer for example. This is also a problem and you will find in most forces its the same individuals over and over again.
Harry and Meghan 'quit social media for good': Couple will not use sites to promote their Archewell Foundation and will not return to personal accounts due 'to haters', source claims
They really are. It is so sad. Look at Harry's face in that Mail article. This is a couple about 1-2 years away from divorce. She is going to dump him and he knows it.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
They are both clever. Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard law school where he graduated magna cum laude.
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Clearly not enough to know which way the wind blows.
I'd best print my essential worker letter from last time around then.
Those colleagues of mine who need to be out and about have all had updated risk assessments and key worker letters. I've heard of people being turned away from Council offices and buildings for not having the correct documentation as well as more frequent examples of people being stopped by the Police.
Oh, I'm on the list for entering the building/labs, that side of things is squared away. I'm starting to get increasingly worried by a busy body dibble ruining my day.
Could be a potential GOP ticket there, Cruz-Hawley 2024 or 2028 to carry on Trump's mantle.
Unlikely to win the general but could win the base
If Cruz got it, he'd deliberately balance the ticket with his VP choice,so not Hawley. Remember, he did choose a VP in 2016 - Carly Fiorini, who was very much designed to reach out.
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
They are both clever. Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard law school where he graduated magna cum laude.
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Clearly not enough to know which way the wind blows.
And both Cruz and Hawley clerked for Chief Justices - Rehnquist and Roberts respectively.
A case of blind ambition, erm ... blinding?
Rehnquist is beyond shame now (not that he'd have any) but Roberts is not.
My guess is current CJSCOTUS feels like John Danforth, who said giving Bloody Hands Hawley a leg up was the "worst decision of my live" which for a former US Senator is REALLY saying something.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
Police shouldn't be handing out fines to people who don't break the law.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
I don't disagree and the police do overstep the law and when that happens it is a disgrace - I've criticised that on many occasions, not least when the guidance does not match the law - but the headline says where they believe people to be in 'breach of the rules', so the implication was where someone appeared to be in breach of the law. Therefore the outrageousness would be the law, not the police action
What law would this be exactly?
I really think people are missing my point and I don't understand why. Some people appear to be objecting to the very principle of the police issuing fines at all, when we know that people are indeed fined for Covid-19 breaches legitimately. I'm saying that having a problem with the police for that is looking in the wrong place.
The police wrongly issuing fines is absolutely their fault, which is why I am glad the fines are reviewed, though they should get it right in the first place.
I don't see what is controversial about that. Parliament has given the police a lot of power, and people can be mad at that, but they have been given it. The police, however, need to utilise that power correctly.
From these responses people seem to be arguing against a non-position that it is ok for them to fine people incorrectly, and no one is suggesing that.
I think you've been missing my point from the start. Going back to the original headline:
Every police officer has been told to fine people £200 if they believe they are in breach of the rules
The police should NOT be issuing any fines UNLESS they have clear evidence of a LAW being broken.
Not a 'rule' or a guideline breeched. A law. The Covid laws are very specific. 2m, for example, is not in law.
They should also have to do more than 'believe' - they should have prima facie evidence. In most cases that will be witnessing breaches of the law. I don't object to them issuing fines for law breakers.
And the review process doesn't negate incorrect imposition of fines. If police are acting on 'beliefs' and 'rules' rather than 'evidence' and 'laws' the rule of law in this country has broken down, and the sacred trust that is policing by consent absolutely violated.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Outrageous.
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
In my area all fines issued are reviewed by the police commissioners office.
As for outrageous, I criticise the police overstepping their bounds plenty, and they will no doubt fine people not in breach of the law by mistake, but they are trying to carry out the law so I wouldn't blame them for the outrageousness of the law.
The police are not legally entitled to do this. If you are out taking exercise, there is no limit in the rules on the amount of time you are allowed to be out. Simply sitting down on a park bench in the middle of your exercise does not put you in breach.
I did just that before embarking on a short hill climb this afternoon, as I had got a bit breathless (I know, I need to get fitter) but if some officious policeman had ordered me to leave I'm sure I'd have had enough breath to give him a lesson on the law.
Be careful from my experience pointing out what the law actually says to a police officer can be construed as causing a breach of the peace in some of their minds
I have a fair amount of experience dealing with the police. But thanks.
Maybe time for some upstanding citizens to follow the Chief Constable of Derbyshire to make a Citizen’s Arrest as soon as he puts a foot out of line. Even better if the upstanding citizens were members of the legal profession.
One quibble: I am not sure what impact the changes between 1967 and 1981 have on today's politics.
The point was to show how things had changed between those two periods. Basically from the end of WW2 up to around the start of the 1990s the Middle Classes in America were expanding and becoming wealthier and more secure. This is captured in those numbers for the period 1967 to 1981 which Stephen Rose used to illustrate his point. Failure and slipping back were relatively rare and aspiration was still very much alive.
From 2000 onwards we see a huge change. Incomes fall and social mobility goes into reverse. The American dream effectively starts to die. Even if they don't feel the immediate effects themselves, millions of Americans see it happening all around them and the idea of betterment becomes nothing more than a bitter memory.
I didn't include them because I needed to get verification but there are some figures from 1991 released by the US Department of Labour which estimates that at that point less than 150,000 jobs were offshored by American companies. By 2018 that was, as I mentioned in the piece, over 14 million. Even if there was absolutely no connection between the two, combining that fact with the horribly deteriorating economic situation for many, if not most, Americans, whilst at the same time the political classes are claiming great hikes in GDP and companies are making their shareholders millionaires and their owners billionaires is a sure fire way to foment the sort of anger and rebellion we have seen over the last decade and which led to the election of Trump.
Would an average European now seek to emigrate to America, to secure an average American life?
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
For us. It is still immensely attractive to places like central America, Mexico and the Philippines.
Plenty of shit jobs in the UK are really, really attractive to people from overseas.
For those with a good sense of humour, the discovery that Polish people were signing up to the new Northern Ireland Police Service in noticeable numbers was a blessing.
Sein Fein had successfully argued, previously, that non-catholic, non-protestants should be counted as protestants for the 50-50 quota thing.
So you have Protestant Hindus, Protestant Muslims, and Protestant Atheists in the PSNI.
The problem with the Polish types was that they weren't locals. Even though, they were pretty much all Catholics.....
So, after some discussion, they were counted in the Protestant quota.
So, in Northern Ireland, we have Protestant Catholics.
Would make more sense IF they were Czech Catholics!
Read something once while back, about a Jewish kid who grew up in Belfast (one of the leafier bits) who was accosted on the street one fine day and asked, are you Catholic or Protestant.
I'm a Jew, he replied
Ok, then, was the rather puzzled response, are yez a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?
Thinking quickly, and taking what he could surmise about his questioners, he swallowed hard and answered, I'm a Protestant Jew.
Which fortunately for him proved to be he right answer.
I'd best print my essential worker letter from last time around then.
Those colleagues of mine who need to be out and about have all had updated risk assessments and key worker letters. I've heard of people being turned away from Council offices and buildings for not having the correct documentation as well as more frequent examples of people being stopped by the Police.
Oh, I'm on the list for entering the building/labs, that side of things is squared away. I'm starting to get increasingly worried by a busy body dibble ruining my day.
This really shouldn't be the case.
If stopped en route to work, I will calmly explain that I cannot work from home. That is perfectly allowed within the law. It shouldn't go any further than that.
The onus would be on the police to prove that I am not in fact en route to work. Otherwise we're not far off 'ihre papier, bitte'
CNN just announced that Trump has said that if he is impeached, he'll ask Guilliani to defend him. Oh dear.
I hate to offer the man advice, but he really could do better.
"One of the few members of his defense team who said he would stick with the president was Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School emeritus professor who had a secondary role last time. In an email on Saturday, he said he would defend Mr. Trump on free speech grounds"
NYTimes
Mr Dershowitz added also noted how sad he was that his friend Jeffrey Epstein had passed.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9129671/Harry-Meghan-quit-social-media-good-Couple-not-use-sites-source-claims.html
NYTimes
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html
That would also have applied to American bands touring here because Britain was in the EU.
On the one hand, he's not a badly intentioned person and is pursuing some constructive projects. There've been many worse extremely rich men than him. On the other hand, his grandly overbearing ideas are exactly representative of a time in America that has held up masters of capital, Ayn-Rand like, as masters of the universe.
His cars will transforms the performance of entire world's transport sustainability ; he alone can achieve useful breakthroughs in space travel that governments cannot, etc. This isn't a model mainly for the patronage and endowment of the more mundane, daily detail of people's lives ; huge and diverse endowments for education, libraries and the arts and other things, etc, like earlier American magnates.
In fact, high profile givers like Gates aside, most extremely wealthy Americans are in fact overall giving *less* of their money to charity, or directly to their workers, than in the pre-war period. Why should they, in an era and culture that has held them up as near-gods. This billionaire god-worship is part of what Trump emerges from, made even more powerful by the fact that he also appears, in his rhetoric, despite not actually substantially doing so, to be confronting the socio-economic realities that many American politicians simply don't get. That's an awesomely powerful combination in modern America.
What happens now? Of course many UK bands will cope and tour the EU, and the other way, but it will be harder and some shows, some tours won't happen.
Of course the Police should also follow the rules and police them fairly and sensibly
Cruz is sufficiently clever to be dangerous.
At least Calm Down Cruz has the sense to keep his fool trap shut for a bit, or at least is curbing his enthusiasm.
Whereas Bloody Hands Hawley keeps on whinning about how he did he right thing and is being persecuted for it.
What is hard to understand?
US bands regulary tour the eu or UK after filling in the paperwork
why do you think EU bands or UK bands are incapable of filling in the same paperwork because it is all that necessary. Despite the crying no one has been banned from touring just do some paperwork first it isn't rocket science. Nothing will stop band's that want to tour apart from a few damn forms it isn't the end of the world.
Probably what most of these are concerned about is that they could tour due to cultural exchange programs which subsidised the tour and now cant because they wouldn't make any money because frankly the few that actually want to hear them won't pay enough to make it viable. A bit like opera or ballet really
In the novel Dotty had silver shoes up the golden runway. How the move to silver standard would help the tin and straw men out west.
It’s about a credible denial as Floyd claiming Dark Side of the Moon is just a series of coincidences.
Because the solutions would go against policy.
They were a mix of care home staff and front line NHS.
According to the best figures I could find, the total number of doctors and nurses in the NHS is 416,876
It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the NHS has received the first dose.
BBC News - 'Human foot' in Gateshead field turns out to be potato
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-55585065
If I was walking with one other person, by a reservoir, say, in Derbyshire, with a coffee (all perfectly legal) and told to return home, I would refuse. Because we don't live in a police state.
Brown University (Providence, RI)
Columbia University (New York, NY)
Cornell University (Ithaca NY)
Dartmouth College (Hanover, NH)
Harvard University (Cambridge, MA)
University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA)
Princeton University (Princeton, NJ)
Yale University (New Haven, CN)
Also note the Seven Sisters colleges
Barnard College (New York, NY)
Bryn Mawr College (Bryn Mawr)
Mount Holyoke College (South Hadley, MA)
Radcliffe College (Cambridge, MA)
Vassar College (Poughkeepsie, NY)
Smith College (Northhampton, MA)
Wellesley College (Wellesley, MA)
Hawley went to Stanford where he graduated with high honours in History and then went to Yale law school.
They are very, very rightwing but also very intelligent, far more intelligent than Trump is or indeed Biden is for that matter
Would anyone eagerly go from Hamburg to Chicago? Oslo to Ohio? Dublin to Kansas? Lisbon to Detroit? Even from Athens Greece to Athens Georgia?
I don't think so. Outside a top, super-affluent decile of bankers going to NYC, hedge funders to Connecticut, actors to LA, geniuses to Silicon Valley, America is now a less attractive place to live than Europe, and, increasingly, much of Asia.
By going to America you are emigrating to an inferior health system, fewer holidays, worse crime, more guns, a mad political system, and terrible food. The American dream is dead.
As for outrageous, I criticise the police overstepping their bounds plenty, and they will no doubt fine people not in breach of the law by mistake, but they are trying to carry out the law so I wouldn't blame them for the outrageousness of the law.
But I’m not an epidemiologist so could be well off the mark.
I can't believe I am having to write that.
Many of the vaccinations so far won't actually help much with containing the virus in the short term, because it's people who would have stayed at home anyway. They might even be counterproductive if people now start heading out with partial protection.
Both Hawlet and Cruz made the same mistake but Hawley is doubling down by whining about his book deal, while Cruz is shutting his mouth and will probably escape the wreckage.
Trump is a has-been; a pathetic throwback; a sad relic.
He has taken the L on a grand scale and his movement will wither with him.
The laws are onerous, no doubt. Whether they are justified is moot here.
However, police should only be handing out fines where there is clear evidence of laws broken.
Not guidelines. Not what the police *think* shouldn't be happening. Not two girls out having a walk by a reservoir.
Give it time and Trump might also feature in the trial of the century, although probably not as lead prosecutor.
Full disclosure, it was Inherit The Wind, To Kill A Mockingbird, and Twelve Angry Men that got me hooked on the law as a child.
For those with a good sense of humour, the discovery that Polish people were signing up to the new Northern Ireland Police Service in noticeable numbers was a blessing.
Sein Fein had successfully argued, previously, that non-catholic, non-protestants should be counted as protestants for the 50-50 quota thing.
So you have Protestant Hindus, Protestant Muslims, and Protestant Atheists in the PSNI.
The problem with the Polish types was that they weren't locals. Even though, they were pretty much all Catholics.....
So, after some discussion, they were counted in the Protestant quota.
So, in Northern Ireland, we have Protestant Catholics.
A case of blind ambition, erm ... blinding?
I did just that before embarking on a short hill climb this afternoon, as I had got a bit breathless (I know, I need to get fitter) but if some officious policeman had ordered me to leave I'm sure I'd have had enough breath to give him a lesson on the law.
BTW, one of WJB's fellow attorney's for the State of Tennessee against Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was Sue K. Hicks, who was a personal friend of Scopes and a man whose mother had died in childbirth, and was named by his father in her memory.
Story is that the writer of the song, the multi-talented Shel Silverstein, had once encountered the real "Boy Named Sue" during a legal case or somesuch.
Anyway, glad it was part of your inspiration to be a legal eagle. ONLY wish you were making SOME progress re: West West Virginia matter.
I am quite sure that some back office types have been.... edging the queue...
Hence the 'How fast were you going?' question when pulled for speeding.
"Coffee without milk"
Otherwise things might get entertaining....
A fair number of our staff who are off covid sick are off with long covid, or psychological distress rather than acute covid. We have about 4% of staff off covid sick, but more in some front line areas.
If people are angry at the police being able to fine people for breaches, that is an issue with the law, and therefore parliament. If people are angry at the police getting what the law is wrong as they seek to fine people, that is an issue with the police. (People could be mad at both of course).
Read something once while back, about a Jewish kid who grew up in Belfast (one of the leafier bits) who was accosted on the street one fine day and asked, are you Catholic or Protestant.
I'm a Jew, he replied
Ok, then, was the rather puzzled response, are yez a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?
Thinking quickly, and taking what he could surmise about his questioners, he swallowed hard and answered, I'm a Protestant Jew.
Which fortunately for him proved to be he right answer.
........and in other circumstances he might have met the same fate
In case you don't know, there is an old NI joke... the punchline goes
"to be sure, to be sure. But are you a Protestant Hindu or a Catholic Hindu?"
When you are legislating jokes.... well, people stop dying.
The police wrongly issuing fines is absolutely their fault, which is why I am glad the fines are reviewed, though they should get it right in the first place.
I don't see what is controversial about that. Parliament has given the police a lot of power, and people can be mad at that, but they have been given it. The police, however, need to utilise that power correctly.
From these responses people seem to be arguing against a non-position that it is ok for them to fine people incorrectly, and no one is suggesing that.
Are there any developed, first world, countries that have maintained near full employment and managed to avoid blown out inequality in the last 20 years?
And the answer is yes, there are quite a few.
Best of all, they share some fairly similar policies, albeit none that are being promoted by either the Democrats or the Republicans.
The most obvious country is Switzerland.
It has incredibly onerous environmental legislation, a really expensive currency, and free trade agreements with all, including China.
It also has a thriving domestic manufacturing sector, from consumer goods all the way through to high tech. And full employment.
Indeed, if you were to look at Swiss policy, you would assume it would be getting massacred by China, Eastern Europe, etc., when it's actually thriving.
Why?
Because Switzerland has a fabulous educational system that emphasises vocational learning for those not going to higher education. (All the first would countries that have done well have really good vocational training - see Singapore, Norway and Germany.)
Switzerland also has high household savings rates: this means that banks profits are based around lending to local businesses, rather than to 25%+ APR credit card customers. (Every other first world country - except Australia that had the mining boom - that's done well also has high household savings rates.)
Imagine the time we'd waste on here if there were no polls to tell us that...
Diana would try and avoid the press - to a certain extent. IIRC it was one of her bodyguards who, after repeatedly changing the itinerary to avoid the press, who found her phoning the photographers to make sure she got snapped running out of a building....
I think the police some of them often overstep their bounds and don't know the law. Ask any photographer for example. This is also a problem and you will find in most forces its the same individuals over and over again.
My guess is current CJSCOTUS feels like John Danforth, who said giving Bloody Hands Hawley a leg up was the "worst decision of my live" which for a former US Senator is REALLY saying something.
Every police officer has been told to fine people £200 if they believe they are in breach of the rules
The police should NOT be issuing any fines UNLESS they have clear evidence of a LAW being broken.
Not a 'rule' or a guideline breeched. A law. The Covid laws are very specific. 2m, for example, is not in law.
They should also have to do more than 'believe' - they should have prima facie evidence. In most cases that will be witnessing breaches of the law. I don't object to them issuing fines for law breakers.
And the review process doesn't negate incorrect imposition of fines. If police are acting on 'beliefs' and 'rules' rather than 'evidence' and 'laws' the rule of law in this country has broken down, and the sacred trust that is policing by consent absolutely violated.
If stopped en route to work, I will calmly explain that I cannot work from home. That is perfectly allowed within the law. It shouldn't go any further than that.
The onus would be on the police to prove that I am not in fact en route to work. Otherwise we're not far off 'ihre papier, bitte'
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/09/austrian-minister-resigns-amid-plagiarism-scandal