Minister Chloe Smith tells the Commons the Government's view is local elections should go ahead in May but the decision will be kept under review with a high bar needed for delay
The point is they are under review and it is not possible to say either way
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."
I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Well indeed. Where is the agency? 5 pieces of fruit I see. What fruit? Kids can be notoriously picky. Also. The vouchers didn't work if there was booze or fags on the order. I suppose you could trade the voucher, but hey.
Trading the vouchers is the issue.
The boxes shown on social media were crap - a stink was raised, Ministers can rip the contractor a new one, the boxes can be improved (to be extremely good), and any money skimmed off (beyond reasonable costs) should be reimbursed. I see this as the system working, not proof of its unfitness for purpose.
Just issue named vouchers and make the supermarkets accept them for food only, with a matching payment card or other id.
Is the lesson that Johnson's learnt from Trump's recent difficulties - avoid having those pesky elections in the first place?
Delaying them is unlikely to advantage him. It might even disadvantage. But there is a lot of pressure and few care about locals, so it is logical from the gov pov if it delays.
Minister Chloe Smith tells the Commons the Government's view is local elections should go ahead in May but the decision will be kept under review with a high bar needed for delay, extended proxy voting will be available
The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
non-story...
You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-
Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.
If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.
If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.
Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).
Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.
So this is why it is important:
I break the rules - no impact Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.
Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.
His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.
What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.
'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'
More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?
On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)
I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.
And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
Not sure I agree.
On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."
And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.
It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.
Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.
I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Calling something a non story is not about whether it is in the news but whether someone thinks it deserves to be news. See also bubble story.
If you teach children that everything should be seen through the prism of race, and that's overridingly the most important thing in the world, then you shouldn't be surprised when they see everything through the prism of race and think it's the most important thing in the world.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
Yup, it means every week a few hundred thousand people between 18 and 50 can be vaccinated, over the next 10 weeks that will add ip to 5-7m people that would otherwise have been waiting around for ages.
Bollocks does it - the limiting factor is going to be vaccine supply.
Maybe for another two or three weeks. After that it's going to be logistics.
It's actually way more likely to be people and transport than logistics....
Supply, Logistics, staff to administer the injections and transporting people to the sites are all issues that need to be solved.
I suspect that the transportation of people will be a real issue until you start looking at those under 70...
So expect election to be delayed in about a month before nominations need to be submitted. Though for once I agree, I dont think it needs deciding now.
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."
I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
It pains me to say it (as the care system is itself riddled with problems) but children in households in which the parents would trade food vouchers to buy drugs, thus leaving the children hungry should not be left in those households. The problem isn't food vouchers in that case, it is that the children should not be there at all (and that the parents need help).
Maybe I'm just a naive nice sensible person, but I can't help believing that such situations are massively in the minority of those helped by free school meals/vouchers/boxes.
The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
non-story...
You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-
Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.
If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.
If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.
Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).
Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.
So this is why it is important:
I break the rules - no impact Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.
Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.
His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.
What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.
'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'
More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?
On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)
I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.
And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
Not sure I agree.
On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."
And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.
It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.
Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.
I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Surely the way to quash it is to say that it is within the rules and that anyone else found cycling 7 miles from home would equally be within the rules.
I actually don't care and can't believe I have got sucked into this, which is admittedly entirely my own fault.
I don't give two hoots what happened which is mind blowing considering the number of posts I have now made on the topic.
My only, and really only point was/is that Boris was naive to make the trip because of what the media would do. That is it. no more than that.
Honestly.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
Yup, it means every week a few hundred thousand people between 18 and 50 can be vaccinated, over the next 10 weeks that will add ip to 5-7m people that would otherwise have been waiting around for ages.
Bollocks does it - the limiting factor is going to be vaccine supply.
Maybe for another two or three weeks. After that it's going to be logistics.
Having seen how quickly our local surgery was able to rattle through the flu vaccines in a weekend by setting up as drive through vaccination centre at a local airfield, I think if they can get the supplies they will could get through all their 26000 patients in a few weeks.
Is Boris PMQ announcement of 24/7 vaccination another one of his moonshot promises? Isn't the issue at the moment supply?
We definitely should be doing as longer hours if supply is there, the "people said they don't fancy coming before 8am" was a nonsense argument. But you have to have the infrastructure and supply there to do it.
As I understand it, it is a trial. It may be found that demand at 4.00am does not justify having staff there. It may not. If it works then as supply increases no doubt the number of 24 hour facilities can be increased. Seems sensible enough but some people want to make it a U turn or something.
It makes sense if the limiting factor is the availability of suitable premises, rather than supply of vaccine or availability of suitable staff. I can see it being useful for a few big centres where the NHS will have set up a large logistical operation and where it is set up for big throughput, but I doubt if all-night sessions are going to play a big part in this. Even if some recipients are happy to turn up at 3.30am, there are transport problems, staff rota problems, and older people don't like going out at night.
The 24 hour stuff looks very much like "where can we find some more mud to sling?". Has anyone explained where the staff are coming from?
Yup.
24/7 is an absurd goal.
Just get 8am-8pm working properly. That’s all we ask.
The problem is staff & Vaccine, not hours in the day and spare chairs.
Which old dear gets done at 0320 in the morning? And how does she get to the stadium without a bus?
One reason I believe the idea of 24 hour vaccines has appeared from is people in their 40-50s thinking - if we have 24hr appointments chances are we will get our vaccinations earlier as no-one else will turn up at 3:30am.
Yup, it means every week a few hundred thousand people between 18 and 50 can be vaccinated, over the next 10 weeks that will add ip to 5-7m people that would otherwise have been waiting around for ages.
Bollocks does it - the limiting factor is going to be vaccine supply.
Maybe for another two or three weeks. After that it's going to be logistics.
It's actually way more likely to be people and transport than logistics....
Supply, Logistics, staff to administer the injections and transporting people to the sites are all issues that need to be solved.
I suspect that the transportation of people will be a real issue until you start looking at those under 70...
Which is why it makes sense to start alloting supply to people who are able to travel easily.
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."
I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
It pains me to say it (as the care system is itself riddled with problems) but children in households in which the parents would trade food vouchers to buy drugs, thus leaving the children hungry should not be left in those households. The problem isn't food vouchers in that case, it is that the children should not be there at all (and that the parents need help).
Maybe I'm just a naive nice sensible person, but I can't help believing that such situations are massively in the minority of those helped by free school meals/vouchers/boxes.
Yep - the issue is that they are trying to solve a problem that shouldn't be occurring because the issue shouldn't exist.
If parents have such serious problems that they cannot be trusted with a £30 voucher the children should be either in the care of other relatives or social care.
And the law says at much but fixing the issues would cost money so it's left to schools to deal with the fallout.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
Maybe you should watch it before commenting on it.
Really? It sounds like it's just a load of white boys waiting for boats. Boring!
My local GP surgery showing how it should be done...
"We completed our first COVID-19 vaccination clinic on Saturday 9th January. This was really successful and we managed to vaccinate around 1100 patients over the age of 80 years. We also went out to all our care homes and vaccinated all the residents and many staff.
We have 3 more clinics this week, today, Thursday and Friday. Patients have been contacted via the phone from our amazing administration team. If you haven't heard anything please don't worry we will contact you once we know when we have more supplies and can set up another clinic.
We will need to run another clinic to complete all our over 80s before we move onto the next cohort of 75 years + and as soon as we hear when we will be receiving more supplies we will contact all those that are in this cohort as per the Government guidance.
We are also planning to visit our registered housebound patients. We are still waiting for guidance on how we can transport the vaccine between households safely so cannot start this just yet but plans are in place! Again we will contact those patients once we are able to.
Again thank you to everyone for your patience. Please do not contact the Surgeries to make an appointment for a vaccine, we will contact you as soon as we have supplies and you sit into the eligible cohort.
The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
non-story...
You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-
Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.
If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.
If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.
Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).
Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.
So this is why it is important:
I break the rules - no impact Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.
Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.
His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.
What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.
'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'
More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?
On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)
I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.
And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
Not sure I agree.
On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."
And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.
It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.
Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.
I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Calling something a non story is not about whether it is in the news but whether someone thinks it deserves to be news. See also bubble story.
I don't think I used the phrase 'non story' (I could be wrong, but I didn't in the last post). 'Non story' does have a particular meaning as you have defined it. That is not the same as 'not a story', 'isn't a story'.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."
I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
It pains me to say it (as the care system is itself riddled with problems) but children in households in which the parents would trade food vouchers to buy drugs, thus leaving the children hungry should not be left in those households. The problem isn't food vouchers in that case, it is that the children should not be there at all (and that the parents need help).
Maybe I'm just a naive nice sensible person, but I can't help believing that such situations are massively in the minority of those helped by free school meals/vouchers/boxes.
Choice seems to be give parents vouchers and expect a miniscule amount of fraud, or get a Tory donor to supply boxes of knock off food worth a fiver at thirty pounds a pop. Clearly the latter represents far better value for the taxpayer, or something.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."
I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
It pains me to say it (as the care system is itself riddled with problems) but children in households in which the parents would trade food vouchers to buy drugs, thus leaving the children hungry should not be left in those households. The problem isn't food vouchers in that case, it is that the children should not be there at all (and that the parents need help).
Maybe I'm just a naive nice sensible person, but I can't help believing that such situations are massively in the minority of those helped by free school meals/vouchers/boxes.
Yep - the issue is that they are trying to solve a problem that shouldn't be occurring because the issue shouldn't exist.
If parents have such serious problems that they cannot be trusted with a £30 voucher the children should be either in the care of other relatives or social care.
And the law says at much but fixing the issues would cost money so it's left to schools to deal with the fallout.
The issue is perhaps a government which believes in individual responsibility but not individual agency.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right on my own)
In fairness PT did have some marginal justification for his holdouts, in strict logic. The PM's tweet is astounding nevertheless - a tighter U-turn than Captain Brown RFC in his Sopwith Camel. In fact alomost so tight you'd not notice it was a U-turn.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right on my own)
I believe it has its origins in Private Eye. Fill up a space - geddit?
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
It's weird, given the popularity of its clips among political nerds, that more do t take on board the one from Yes Prime Minister where Hacker talks about stumping the opposition by admitting to getting something wrong.
Sometimes it's the only way out.
We all fuck things up. An early lesson I was taught in my career from a senior Nestle director was this - if its gone wrong, you own it, and help fix it, you aren't going to get in trouble for it.
So when I've screwed up (a £20k cost the company at one point) I've always been the first to say "this was me, I'm sorry, here's how we can fix it" followed by a volunteered autopsy of what went wrong. Its what I have always drilled into my team - confess early before they have chance to get angry about it.
So yes, a "we got this one wrong, there are so many issues we have to take into account, we're sorry" would have both killed the narrative dead and bought them some sympathy or at least understanding.
In my early thirties I overlooked something in calculating the costs of a project and inadvertently spent a million pounds by mistake. When I spotted my own error, we were already committed. I didn’t sleep for several nights until, since there was by then no way to put things right, I went to see my boss to confess my mistake, fully expecting severe sanction.
I was stunned when he didn’t seem the least concerned, said that I wasn’t the first or the last person to get a calculation wrong, and simply told me to spread the error out across all the budget units and probably no-one would notice. And he was, pretty much, right; I overspread the error, and there were a few budget units that complained that their budget was insufficient and I used my contingency to give them a bit extra. Most of them never said a thing.
That was a good boss, and an expensive lesson. It did make me extra careful in doing such calculations for decades thereafter.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
More than 16sec? It had little elves in the wing bays to reload the .303s, obvs. Artistic licence.
ManCock: "I'm really glad that we're able to send out food for those who receive free school meals" Piers Moron: "If you're that glad, why did you vote against it?" ManCock: "I'm glad that we were able to put this into place" Moron: "If you're that glad why did you, as Health Secretary, vote against it"
It's just so painful to watch. Why can't people just say yup, I got that one wrong? You can even make a virtue out of looking twice at an issue. People with fragile egos are the worst kind of leader.
" We were looking at a range of options and had not chosen that one at the time so I voted against it. The alternative was never to do nothing, it was to find the best solution. Recent problems with the boxes show that it was not an ideal solution but within days of the original vote the need to do something quickly overrode those objections so we changed our position."
I mean, this isn't hard. Why do Hancock and Williamson have to make it so?
Nicely worded, but why the trashing of the box idea? Is that Government policy? As far as I'm aware Boris has criticised what he's seen of some of the execution, not the whole box policy. If Hancock said that surely it would set the cat amongst the pigeons?
That wouldn't be trashing it, it would simply suggest that it is not without problems which is now unarguable. What Rashford wanted (other than a bloody goal, yet again) was the kitchens to remain open so that kids could (a) have a decent choice for a hot meal and (b) have some contact with "authority" if that was a good idea. If the kitchens are closed we are in the land of second best. Vouchers seems more sensible to me but IANAE.
The original plan was vouchers but then an MP decided that the vouchers could be traded for drugs - hence the need for a crappier solution...
It always depresses me how supposedly Conservative politicians find ideas of individual responsibility and respect of the individual so difficult to get their head around.
My brother has been getting these food boxes because he has terminal cancer and is shielding. He has given away most of the contents because it is not what he likes to eat. He has about 50 cans of minestrone though because his daughter doesn't like that every much. My guess would be that vouchers "wasted" on cigarettes and drink< contents wasted because no one wants to eat them, but, as I say, IANAE.
Vouchers exchanged for items other than food doesn't help kids, having food around the house does. I'm sure it's a baffler to nice, sensible people, but substance abuse issues clearly affect some people who are being helped by these boxes, and this is one way around it.
It pains me to say it (as the care system is itself riddled with problems) but children in households in which the parents would trade food vouchers to buy drugs, thus leaving the children hungry should not be left in those households. The problem isn't food vouchers in that case, it is that the children should not be there at all (and that the parents need help).
Maybe I'm just a naive nice sensible person, but I can't help believing that such situations are massively in the minority of those helped by free school meals/vouchers/boxes.
Choice seems to be give parents vouchers and expect a miniscule amount of fraud, or get a Tory donor to supply boxes of knock off food worth a fiver at thirty pounds a pop. Clearly the latter represents far better value for the taxpayer, or something.
I dont understand why an apology is acceptable here, it should be a criminal matter.
We seem to have forgotten laws apply to businesses as well as individuals.
I didn't know "unconfident" was a word, don't think I've ever seen it before.
Also, I congratulate them for having "somewhere in the middle" as a possible response and I'm gratified that over a quarter are in that segment. Centrist dads (and mums and non-parents) unite!
More seriously, who cares? If they're somewhere near that target, I couldn't care less whether they're 100k above or 100k below, they'll be doing a good job.
Just caught up on the Speaker's interventions at PMQs. I agree with others who say (a) best Speaker for a long time and (b) I particularly like the way that he is understated and sees no need to be the star of the show, unlike his immediate predecessor.
Boris will push as far as he can, it is in his nature. This intervention is welcome.
My elderly father got his jab this morning. Said it was well organised, but giving out the Pfizer one definitely slows things down (with the 15 mins wait afterward plus social distancing). I think he said there were only doing about 500 people a day at the centre he went to.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
I feel such a twit. Thank you.
Wouldn't worry - I've had to ask for explanations of some much more salient contemporary cultural references myself (as when Dura Ace referred to Ofboris).
I was at my GP practice earlier for a scheduled treatment. Nurse was saying over 80s are currently being vaccinated, but they are completing housebound patients first. Care Homes have been completed.
Given that the NHS (particularly in the west of Scotland) is pretty much at capacity, then vaccinating NHS staff as a priority is vital.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
I saw it the first time in a cinema, where you are forced to focus on it and the size of the screen and the sound makes a bigger impact. It was an impressive film, one of those that make you feel you are there yourself, private Ryan style, although it was confusing that you kept being shown the same incident from different angles, and the timeline seemed all over the place.
I too watched it on TV over Xmas, and on a small screen, having seen it before, it was very meh. One of those films you only need to see once.
It is - but its still consistent with the "blended" approach of doing Groups I & 2 in parallel (especially given the logistical challenges of BioNtech/Pfizer) - after this is all over it will be interesting to see how variations in approach have fared.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
The name is always female of course, because serious journalism should be left to the chaps.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
I saw it the first time in a cinema, where you are forced to focus on it and the size of the screen and the sound makes a bigger impact. It was an impressive film, one of those that make you feel you are there yourself, private Ryan style, although it was confusing that you kept being shown the same incident from different angles, and the timeline seemed all over the place.
I too watched it on TV over Xmas, and on a small screen, having seen it before, it was very meh. One of those films you only need to see once.
Totally agree. I watched in iMax and it was a real experience, increasingly rare with films. I watched it on my big screen telly, not the same.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
More than 16sec? It had little elves in the wing bays to reload the .303s, obvs. Artistic licence.
I went into the film with great expectations (probably an error), found it unwatchable and gave up before Hardy even made his first appearance. Wallowing comes to mind as a descriptor. The worst type of nostalgia.
Just caught up on the Speaker's interventions at PMQs. I agree with others who say (a) best Speaker for a long time and (b) I particularly like the way that he is understated and sees no need to be the star of the show, unlike his immediate predecessor.
Boris will push as far as he can, it is in his nature. This intervention is welcome.
Bozo must surely be realising that he is falling so far short of his hero’s performances in the Commons.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
The name is always female of course, because serious journalism should be left to the chaps.
n = 2, assumed p = 0.5, null hypothesis of chance occurrence of two females = 25%. Need more data.
Now I'll be keeping an eye open (so to speak) in the next issue of the Eye,. thanks to you ...
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
I saw it the first time in a cinema, where you are forced to focus on it and the size of the screen and the sound makes a bigger impact. It was an impressive film, one of those that make you feel you are there yourself, private Ryan style, although it was confusing that you kept being shown the same incident from different angles, and the timeline seemed all over the place.
I too watched it on TV over Xmas, and on a small screen, having seen it before, it was very meh. One of those films you only need to see once.
Totally agree. I watched in iMax and it was a real experience, increasingly rare with films. I watched it on my big screen telly, not the same.
The first few scenes with the bullets flying around in the street had me ducking a bit in the cinema I must say. Not felt something that visceral since the car chase scene in Matrix 2 (absolutely brilliant and worth watching a crap movie for) which literally had people swerving in their seats.
And a repost of the very good article on the leading vaccines that I linked to earlier this morning: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/genetic-code-of-covid-19-vaccines/ ...Most SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have chosen to use a slightly modified S gene where two amino acids have been changed into Prolines, adding a lot of stability. In lab testing, this increased expression by a factor of fifty. Further ‘HexaPro’ modifications are even more impressive.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine contains the unmodified Spike, and we don’t know if that has been a factor in the somewhat disappointing performance as reported so far. We may wonder if intellectual property considerations have played a role in foregoing the use of the modification.
Note: AZD1222 might function well when administered intranasally. When taken nasally, it outperformed its injected performance in this study. The Janssen Ad26 vaccine does contain the ‘2PP’ modification, and we anxiously await their numbers, supposedly due January 21st...
This is also an excellent snippet on the Johnson & Johnson (aka Janssen) vaccine... “The adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) wild type virus was first isolated in 1956 from an anal specimen of a 9-month-old male child”
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
I feel such a twit. Thank you.
Wouldn't worry - I've had to ask for explanations of some much more salient contemporary cultural references myself (as when Dura Ace referred to Ofboris).
It is really annoying I didn't get it because for a training course I once produced I did loads of these (many pinched from I'm sorry I haven't a clue). So for instance one was focused around a snooker story which had the characters Bill Yardque and his Russian opponent Inoff the Red.
I spent more time thinking of the names and weaving them into a story than the real course contents. Still it appeared to have amused.
On topic, it’s a matter of time, as well as support.
The Republicans might possibly support, in sufficient numbers, an impeachment vote - but the conclusion of that process is still very likely to fall after Biden’s inauguration. Hence the 9/1 on offer.
I am not picking up signs that the Reps want to reconvene the Senate and deal with this quickly. The upside for them in delaying is that it waylays the Dems first hundred days.
Sound about right - but it still means it's better focus on giving more people first injections rather than the second one.
take 20 people - if you vaccinate all 20 of them 1 once 10 have protection. Vaccinate 10 of them twice and only 8 have protection.
Granted it's not perfect but its the best option out there unless a single dose offers less than 50% of the protection 2 doses does.
Good data, but I hate the sloppy language. The article talks about 'infections' (i.e. the virus getting into bodies) whereas the re-tweeting MD talks about 'transmission' - i.e. infected people shedding virus and infecting others. Which is it? I'll go with the original article.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
non-story...
You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-
Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.
If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.
If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.
Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).
Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.
So this is why it is important:
I break the rules - no impact Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.
Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.
His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.
What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.
'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'
More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?
On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)
I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.
And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
Not sure I agree.
On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."
And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.
It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.
Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.
I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Surely the way to quash it is to say that it is within the rules and that anyone else found cycling 7 miles from home would equally be within the rules.
I actually don't care and can't believe I have got sucked into this, which is admittedly entirely my own fault.
I don't give two hoots what happened which is mind blowing considering the number of posts I have now made on the topic.
My only, and really only point was/is that Boris was naive to make the trip because of what the media would do. That is it. no more than that.
Honestly.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
You need to give up on your claim.
A chimpanzee's tea party in the media does not a story make.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
More than 16sec? It had little elves in the wing bays to reload the .303s, obvs. Artistic licence.
Or the combat while gliding? Apparently all that hard work with the Merlin was un-needed.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
More than 16sec? It had little elves in the wing bays to reload the .303s, obvs. Artistic licence.
I went into the film with great expectations (probably an error), found it unwatchable and gave up before Hardy even made his first appearance. Wallowing comes to mind as a descriptor. The worst type of nostalgia.
I managed to sit through the whole thing. Am I alone in thinking that national treasure Mark Rylance has become a bit of an unbearable luvvie in his onscreen performances ?
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
non-story...
You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-
Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.
If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.
If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.
Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).
Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.
So this is why it is important:
I break the rules - no impact Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.
Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.
His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.
What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.
'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'
More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?
On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)
I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.
And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
Not sure I agree.
On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."
And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.
It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.
Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.
I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Surely the way to quash it is to say that it is within the rules and that anyone else found cycling 7 miles from home would equally be within the rules.
I actually don't care and can't believe I have got sucked into this, which is admittedly entirely my own fault.
I don't give two hoots what happened which is mind blowing considering the number of posts I have now made on the topic.
My only, and really only point was/is that Boris was naive to make the trip because of what the media would do. That is it. no more than that.
Honestly.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
You need to give up on your claim.
A chimpanzee's tea party in the media does not a story make.
Really? Newspapers and media outlets reporting something is the literal definition of "a story". The joy of the media is that it is mediated - it is whatever the people who write it say it is. You may not think it a story, but they do. And they publish the media and we don't.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
You get a like for continuing to dig your pit down towards Java.
I'm not digging a pit, I was right. 100% unambiguously correct.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
How do you end up with a £10.50 box given that the allowance is £3 per child per day?
From the Times of Israel article, interesting speculation about how a fully immune person could still spread COVID:
"Alroy-Preis stressed that the data wasn’t enough to conclude that the vaccine prevents transmission of the virus altogether, since it is believed that one can spread the virus to others for a limited amount of time if it is located in their nasal cavity, even if it hasn’t infected the body to a level that would yield a positive test result."
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
I saw it the first time in a cinema, where you are forced to focus on it and the size of the screen and the sound makes a bigger impact. It was an impressive film, one of those that make you feel you are there yourself, private Ryan style, although it was confusing that you kept being shown the same incident from different angles, and the timeline seemed all over the place.
I too watched it on TV over Xmas, and on a small screen, having seen it before, it was very meh. One of those films you only need to see once.
Yep, the cinema experience definitely swamps you. When I first saw it I did think about doing the full sensory experience (wind, seaspray, smell of cordite etc) at the Cineworld, but an older, wiser pal with whom I went said ‘don’t be fucking stupid’.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
I'm sure I would agree with that if I knew who the hell Phillippa Space was (I have never thought about it before but there are an awful lot of 'p's, 'i's and 'l's in Phillippa - there is no chance I would get that spelling right in my own)
Generic name for a jouirnalist who fills up space - geddit?
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
The name is always female of course, because serious journalism should be left to the chaps.
My daughter has been catching up on documentaries during the lockdown and I saw a fair bit of the series about the Yorkshire Ripper. Just an absolutely appalling catalogue of incompetence based on sexist assumptions and misjudgments but one that stood out was that in those days blokes did all the serious reporting and the girls did the fluffy bits. It was only when a female journalist from the ST started looking into it that it was ascertained that there had been earlier, non fatal, attacks that had been disregarded because the females were very clearly not prostitutes (the assumed motivation throughout, for no compelling reason). It was also ascertained that these victims should have been able to establish that Sutcliffe was not a Geordie and that the disregarding of anyone who wasn't because of a tape which was a hoax was a terrible error.
The question was asked if there had been more female police officers on the case and if female journalists had been asking at least some of the questions would the truth have been ascertained more quickly? Can't say for definite but yes was definitely ahead on points.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
The media can choose to make anything a story by banging on and on about it on 24 hour rolling news (usually to give a job to Phillippa Space).
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
The point is Philip it is a story. You can't possibly deny that because the media has been droning on about it relentlessly. It really doesn't matter that the media might be very wrong and that Boris may have done absolutely nothing wrong.
non-story...
You actually think it's a 'story' because there's now a cartoon about it?
It shows the story has got "legs". Its not just Johnson or even the Tories that fuel the story - two local ones up here of a similar "do what we say not what we do" ilk-
Those two are a tiny bit different than going on a bike ride, don't you think?
It doesn't matter. What is key is that Boris did not have the common sense to not realise the optics of what he was doing. With all that had gone before how did he not realise this?
It does matter as to whether what he did was a breach or not. Optics is one thing, but whether he actually did something wrong is another and highly relevant.
If people think he broke rules that matters a little l, but whether he actually did matters more. Anyone mad at him for not breaking rules is unreasonable and it distracts from actual failures.
Well yes ok technically, but in reality no.
If I break the rules probably nobody but me and policeman is going to know.
Whereas if Boris does not break the rules, but does something that may appear to some as possibly being on the verge of well you know then the media picks it up and ministers are asked over an over again, and opinion columns write about it, etc, etc and within days several million people think he did break the rules (often just because they want to think that).
Hey presto the Government's message is tarnished.
So this is why it is important:
I break the rules - no impact Boris doesn't break the rules - all hell breaks loose.
Hence why Boris does need to be more careful in what he does.
Perhaps he should be more careful. But the condemnation and outrage is over the top absurd if no rules are broken.
His actions might be inadvisable, but dont justify outrage unless rules are broken.
What appears to be the case is not wholly irrelevant, but what actually is the case is more relevant.
'The review said: "The current location is inappropriate because it is outside an educational establishment, which includes young people from diverse backgrounds."'
More like woke idiots having nothing better to do than erase historic monuments in the middle of a pandemic. How could 'young people from diverse backgrounds' possibly gain an education (!) without having their surroundings culturally cleansed?
On a happier side note, despite the Rhodes Must Fall loons getting Oriel to agree to remove the statue by the end of 2020, as of now Rhodes ... has not yet fallen. And All Souls has decided to keep their statue of Christopher Codrington in situ. Little by little, the forces of conservatism are digging in, and pushing back.
I dont support statues and monuments being removed in most cases. However, though I might disagree in many cases if those democratically responsible take the decision, I accept that it was up to them and done via a process.
kle, I agree with your reply to me. I don't think I said anything different. I think some Boris defenders probably read far too much into my posts (because we are far to partisan on here)
I will try again. My only criticism of Boris, on the facts that I am aware of, is that he didn't have the foresight to realise it may cause a problem in the media.
And that lack of foresight came into the category of 'the bleeding obvious'.
Not sure I agree.
On 19 Dec, Mark Drakeford said "Please don’t rush to the shops tonight. As we move to alert level four in Wales most shops must close but supermarkets will remain open, and click and collect will be available."
And, an hour or so later on 19th December, phone footage of Mark Drakeford in Lidl buying his massive Xmas turkey was circulating on Twitter. Mark must have dashed out immediately after telling everyone else in Wales not to.
It is not, though, a big deal and nor is Boris' bike ride.
Smartphones are gradually making it impossible for anyone at the top of politics to have any expectation of privacy at all. In terms of attracting half-way competent people to do these jobs, it is not very healthy.
I don't think the problem here lies with "the lack of foresight" of Boris or Mark, it lies with the relentless 24 hour blame game of the modern media.
I do agree with your last 2 sentences/paragraphs.
However how anyone on here (I'm talking to you Philip) can possibly argue it isn't a story when everyone is bloody well talking about it (including us!!!).
I am gobsmacked by those claiming it is not a story while adding to it.
Really people are getting confused between the argument as to whether Boris did anything wrong (I have never suggested that he did) and whether it is a bloody story. It bloody well is. It is self bloody evident it is.
Surely the way to quash it is to say that it is within the rules and that anyone else found cycling 7 miles from home would equally be within the rules.
I actually don't care and can't believe I have got sucked into this, which is admittedly entirely my own fault.
I don't give two hoots what happened which is mind blowing considering the number of posts I have now made on the topic.
My only, and really only point was/is that Boris was naive to make the trip because of what the media would do. That is it. no more than that.
Honestly.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
You need to give up on your claim.
A chimpanzee's tea party in the media does not a story make.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
I saw it the first time in a cinema, where you are forced to focus on it and the size of the screen and the sound makes a bigger impact. It was an impressive film, one of those that make you feel you are there yourself, private Ryan style, although it was confusing that you kept being shown the same incident from different angles, and the timeline seemed all over the place.
I too watched it on TV over Xmas, and on a small screen, having seen it before, it was very meh. One of those films you only need to see once.
Totally agree. I watched in iMax and it was a real experience, increasingly rare with films. I watched it on my big screen telly, not the same.
The movie relies heavily on the acoustics, which IMHO were quite smart, with the rhythm of the boat's engine pervading throughout. However, unless your TV is rigged up to a decent sound system with plenty of bass, it doesn't translate well to the small screen.
I believe there were several hundred chaps from the Indian Army at Dunkirk.
Mind you, later in the war, the Germans did become quite multi-cultural.
Were they in the film, though? If not, perhaps that backs up the original point? The criticism as I understand it is of Dunkirk the film not Dunkirk the historical event, an important distinction no doubt lost in Harry Cole's Culture War (now that does sound like a boring film - white boys waiting for bantz). I've not seen the film (or the historical event) although I do remember the Dunkirk scenes in Atonement dragging on a bit.
It's a Nolan film, ie its overhyped.
It was good in the cinema (remember them) with the surround sound effects and the big screen. On the TV it was meh.
His films are typically pretty good , and I liked it. But he gets a pass on storytelling in some films because of technical brilliance in my opinion. Tenet springs to mind.
I watched it again over Christmas and it definitely hasn’t improved with age. For a movie with minimal dialogue, what there is is pretty dire. Also how much fecking ammunition was Tom Hardy’s Spitfire carrying?
More than 16sec? It had little elves in the wing bays to reload the .303s, obvs. Artistic licence.
I went into the film with great expectations (probably an error), found it unwatchable and gave up before Hardy even made his first appearance. Wallowing comes to mind as a descriptor. The worst type of nostalgia.
I managed to sit through the whole thing. Am I alone in thinking that national treasure Mark Rylance has become a bit of an unbearable luvvie in his onscreen performances ?
It needed some more robust subplots, for those to whom it was not a revelation that the white boys [spoiler] got their boats by and large.
Comments
The defenders, on the other hand were an interesting bunch. Lots of Russians... and....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Kyoungjong
Supply, Logistics, staff to administer the injections and transporting people to the sites are all issues that need to be solved.
I suspect that the transportation of people will be a real issue until you start looking at those under 70...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/poisoned-kremlin-critic-navalny-announces-imminent-return-to-russia/ar-BB1cIpaO?ocid=msedgntp
Just don't, ok?
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1349350799936278530?s=20
Maybe I'm just a naive nice sensible person, but I can't help believing that such situations are massively in the minority of those helped by free school meals/vouchers/boxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Arabian_Legion etc etc
So it turns out that a gang of whack job genocidal racists are also hypocrites? Well knock me down with a feather.....
Yesterday: "Fake News"
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3208429/#Comment_3208429
Today
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1349350623427354627
I don't give two hoots what happened which is mind blowing considering the number of posts I have now made on the topic.
My only, and really only point was/is that Boris was naive to make the trip because of what the media would do. That is it. no more than that.
Honestly.
And all the posts trying to claim there was no story. I mean really.
If they can get the supplies.
If parents have such serious problems that they cannot be trusted with a £30 voucher the children should be either in the care of other relatives or social care.
And the law says at much but fixing the issues would cost money so it's left to schools to deal with the fallout.
"We completed our first COVID-19 vaccination clinic on Saturday 9th January. This was really successful and we managed to vaccinate around 1100 patients over the age of 80 years. We also went out to all our care homes and vaccinated all the residents and many staff.
We have 3 more clinics this week, today, Thursday and Friday. Patients have been contacted via the phone from our amazing administration team. If you haven't heard anything please don't worry we will contact you once we know when we have more supplies and can set up another clinic.
We will need to run another clinic to complete all our over 80s before we move onto the next cohort of 75 years + and as soon as we hear when we will be receiving more supplies we will contact all those that are in this cohort as per the Government guidance.
We are also planning to visit our registered housebound patients. We are still waiting for guidance on how we can transport the vaccine between households safely so cannot start this just yet but plans are in place! Again we will contact those patients once we are able to.
Again thank you to everyone for your patience. Please do not contact the Surgeries to make an appointment for a vaccine, we will contact you as soon as we have supplies and you sit into the eligible cohort.
BVP team"
https://www.blackmorevalesurgery.co.uk/news/covid-19-vaccination-programme
The lass otoh has a future as a film critic.
Odd how Phillippa chooses to make it about the PM cycling within London for his exercise, whilst never choosing to make the story about media types taking intercontinental holidays in a pandemic. Perks of the job I guess....
https://twitter.com/TravellingTabby/status/1349352935260643328?s=20
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1349351598787620865?s=20
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1349351601929146368?s=20
https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1349351605360058369?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/13/yellow-mealworm-safe-for-humans-to-eat-says-eu-food-safety-agency
OTOH, not edible if you have a prawn or mite allergy.
Philip's posts are a great source of accurate reporting - read what he says, assume the exact opposite and you will be right 90% of the time.
Ediut: the Eye equivalent is Polly Filler, after the DIY gunge.
https://twitter.com/jill_number32/status/1348986948803842049?s=21
I was stunned when he didn’t seem the least concerned, said that I wasn’t the first or the last person to get a calculation wrong, and simply told me to spread the error out across all the budget units and probably no-one would notice. And he was, pretty much, right; I overspread the error, and there were a few budget units that complained that their budget was insufficient and I used my contingency to give them a bit extra. Most of them never said a thing.
That was a good boss, and an expensive lesson. It did make me extra careful in doing such calculations for decades thereafter.
We seem to have forgotten laws apply to businesses as well as individuals.
Also, I congratulate them for having "somewhere in the middle" as a possible response and I'm gratified that over a quarter are in that segment. Centrist dads (and mums and non-parents) unite!
More seriously, who cares? If they're somewhere near that target, I couldn't care less whether they're 100k above or 100k below, they'll be doing a good job.
Boris will push as far as he can, it is in his nature. This intervention is welcome.
He just needs to *breathe* once in a while.
take 20 people - if you vaccinate all 20 of them 1 once 10 have protection.
Vaccinate 10 of them twice and only 8 have protection.
Granted it's not perfect but its the best option out there unless a single dose offers less than 50% of the protection 2 doses does.
Given that the NHS (particularly in the west of Scotland) is pretty much at capacity, then vaccinating NHS staff as a priority is vital.
I too watched it on TV over Xmas, and on a small screen, having seen it before, it was very meh. One of those films you only need to see once.
I said that the idea that this was charged £30 for two weeks was going to be fake news and I said I was prepared to do a charity bet to a food bank or other charity of your choice if I was wrong, if you wanted to take the bet.
I also said that the parcels were poor quality, unacceptable and something should be done about it but we should get to the truth.
Well *drum roll* it turns out I was . . . 100% correct.
The parcel involved was poor and I am glad there's been an apology and they're fixing it for the future - but it was not a £30 parcel. Instead it was a £10.50 one.
Still poor value for £10.50 but poor value for £10.50 and poor value for £30 are an order of magnitude different.
So I don't know if you took up my offer of the bet. If you did, please feel free to donate to a food bank or other charity of your choice. Thank you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/health/covid-vaccine-johnson-johnson.html
No, it is fair given your actions, and that's why you'll be upset.
Now I'll be keeping an eye open (so to speak) in the next issue of the Eye,. thanks to you ...
Dunkirk didn't keep that immediacy going though.
174,276 more 1st shots
13,369 more second shots
So 187,645 for England only
UK should be well over 200K.
Also, only just saw the good news re: @DavidL 's son. Should be back to normal by Michaelmas, too. Congrats!
https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/genetic-code-of-covid-19-vaccines/
...Most SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have chosen to use a slightly modified S gene where two amino acids have been changed into Prolines, adding a lot of stability. In lab testing, this increased expression by a factor of fifty. Further ‘HexaPro’ modifications are even more impressive.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine contains the unmodified Spike, and we don’t know if that has been a factor in the somewhat disappointing performance as reported so far. We may wonder if intellectual property considerations have played a role in foregoing the use of the modification.
Note: AZD1222 might function well when administered intranasally. When taken nasally, it outperformed its injected performance in this study.
The Janssen Ad26 vaccine does contain the ‘2PP’ modification, and we anxiously await their numbers, supposedly due January 21st...
This is also an excellent snippet on the Johnson & Johnson (aka Janssen) vaccine...
“The adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) wild type virus was first isolated in 1956 from an anal specimen of a 9-month-old male child”
I spent more time thinking of the names and weaving them into a story than the real course contents. Still it appeared to have amused.
The Republicans might possibly support, in sufficient numbers, an impeachment vote - but the conclusion of that process is still very likely to fall after Biden’s inauguration. Hence the 9/1 on offer.
I am not picking up signs that the Reps want to reconvene the Senate and deal with this quickly. The upside for them in delaying is that it waylays the Dems first hundred days.
A chimpanzee's tea party in the media does not a story make.
The schools were charged £10.50 not £30 which was my contention, that there wasn't a chance on earth that was a £30 box. It was a £10 box (£10.50 technically) not a £30 box.
Last I checked £10 does not equal £30. Nor does £10.50.
Still poor, still needs sorting, I said all that, but the idea it was "what £30 gets you"? Unadulterated bullshit. Of course.
Unless you think the truth does not matter I was correct, wasn't I?
34 days to go.
11,645,444 first doses to do.
Required vaccination rate now 342,513 per day. (Just under 2.4 million per week)
Edit: Oh, England numbers? Is the target for the UK?
Am I alone in thinking that national treasure Mark Rylance has become a bit of an unbearable luvvie in his onscreen performances ?
"Alroy-Preis stressed that the data wasn’t enough to conclude that the vaccine prevents transmission of the virus altogether, since it is believed that one can spread the virus to others for a limited amount of time if it is located in their nasal cavity, even if it hasn’t infected the body to a level that would yield a positive test result."
The question was asked if there had been more female police officers on the case and if female journalists had been asking at least some of the questions would the truth have been ascertained more quickly? Can't say for definite but yes was definitely ahead on points.
But also underlines the importance of still getting the second shot, even if belatedly.