It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
What’s his diplomatic status now?
An issue for the EU, surely? However the UK's position is consistent with how it treats other international organizations. Full ambassadorial privileges are reserved for sovereign nations.
FIREFIGHTERS are battling to save a factory producing the Oxford Covid vaccine in North Wales from flooding caused by Storm Christoph. Emergency services raced to Wrexham Industrial Estate last night to protect the jab - as 2,000 homes across England were evacuated following torrential rainfall overnight.
Listened to the leader of Wrexham Council earlier this morning who did confirm that they have taken measures to protect the factory and to be honest he did not seem alarmed
"Nicola Sturgeon is the UK's best respected party leader, according to the latest polling.
Work by Opinium for the Observer shows 40% of people in Scotland "strongly approve" of the way she's doing her job.
That compares with a rating of 11% for Tory PM Boris Johnson, 4% for Labour head Keir Starmer and 3% for Ed Davey of the LibDems. [...] Sturgeon also leads the pack for voters in the UK as a whole — with 42% approval to Johnson's 34%.
Even in England, 41% of people approve of the way she's doing her job, compared with 38% for Starmer, 34% for Johnson and 14% for Davey.
And when the disapproval ratings are brought in, that leaves Sturgeon as the only one of the four in positive numbers in Scotland, with Johnson plummeting to -25% while the SNP head is at +28%.
In fact, Johnson is on negative numbers everywhere, while Sturgeon is on +13% for the UK as a whole and +12% for England."
Surely the shattering effect of #nodealNicola is yet to kick in?
How does one 'inadvertently' write a 3000 word article?
The central charge, so far as I can make it out, is that Sturgeon met the former leader of the SNP at her Official residence without civil servants being present. That this was a crime so heinous that it had "parallels with Watergate" goes beyond hyperbole into hysteria.
It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.
It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.
Sad.
I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.
Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.
Your priorities are all wrong.
Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.
Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.
Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.
My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.
Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.
You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.
@Casino_Royale wrote a very good post yesterday on woke-ism: the difference between being awake to and dealing with oppression and its consequences vs a somewhat narcissistic insistence on symbolic gesture and telling people what to think unaccompanied by any effective action to help people.
If we take it to mean hectoring and lecturing ABOUT social justice but with no genuine interest IN social justice then Woke becomes - literally by definition - a bad thing that at best irritates and at worst detracts from the cause (of social justice). But this is to conflate the cause with the demerits of some of the people involved in it. Any movement can be (unfairly) attacked in this way.
The UK is giving 200 vaccinations every minute, Health Secretary Matt Hancock says
He says the UK has now given more than five million doses of the vaccine to 4.6 million people.
It comes as 65 new vaccination centres are due to open in England today, including a mosque in Birmingham and a cinema in Aylesbury.
And as noted yesterday - they are also rolling out in-home vaccinations.
Yes, having vaccination teams door knocking is going to really get those last 30% of over 80s done quickly. It's also something that doesn't need to rely on local infrastructure.
It does depend though whether it is supply or manpower that is on your critical path. It is likely to be a 10 fold difference in numbers done, but if the person doing it is not doing vaccinations in a centre then it is a no brainer.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.
If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.
Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.
Exactly.
I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!
As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.
That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
I think one has to accept limits to free trade. Ultimately, there comes a point where the loss of self-government become more important than marginal boosts to GDP.
The UK is giving 200 vaccinations every minute, Health Secretary Matt Hancock says
He says the UK has now given more than five million doses of the vaccine to 4.6 million people.
It comes as 65 new vaccination centres are due to open in England today, including a mosque in Birmingham and a cinema in Aylesbury.
And as noted yesterday - they are also rolling out in-home vaccinations.
Yes, having vaccination teams door knocking is going to really get those last 30% of over 80s done quickly. It's also something that doesn't need to rely on local infrastructure.
It does depend though whether it is supply or manpower that is on your critical path. It is likely to be a 10 fold difference in numbers done, but if the person doing it is not doing vaccinations in a centre then it is a no brainer.
How does the in-home vaccination work? Do you need to register as needing it when you try and book a slot?
The UK is giving 200 vaccinations every minute, Health Secretary Matt Hancock says
He says the UK has now given more than five million doses of the vaccine to 4.6 million people.
It comes as 65 new vaccination centres are due to open in England today, including a mosque in Birmingham and a cinema in Aylesbury.
And as noted yesterday - they are also rolling out in-home vaccinations.
Yes, having vaccination teams door knocking is going to really get those last 30% of over 80s done quickly. It's also something that doesn't need to rely on local infrastructure.
It does depend though whether it is supply or manpower that is on your critical path. It is likely to be a 10 fold difference in numbers done, but if the person doing it is not doing vaccinations in a centre then it is a no brainer.
But that's an issue of manpower which we can throw bodies at. Hiring an extra few teams to knock on doors doesn't preclude opening more vaccination centres. As k said yesterday, it's like having a multicore processor vs a single core one. You run as many threads in parallel as feasible and door knocking will be the difference between getting to 70-80% of immobile groups jabbed and 95-100% done.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
A housebound 84-year-old woman says she has been told she may have to wait up to two months to have her coronavirus vaccine if she cannot get to her GP surgery.
Stuart Wilson says his mother Julia, from Sketty in Swansea, is immobile and needs two people with a hoist to get her up.
He says her surgery called on Tuesday offering a jab but they were told it would take time to arrange a house visit.
Some GPs appear to be completely indifferent to vaccination, whereas others are completely on top of everyone. People who have mobility issues need to be top of the priority list.
A housebound 84-year-old woman says she has been told she may have to wait up to two months to have her coronavirus vaccine if she cannot get to her GP surgery.
Stuart Wilson says his mother Julia, from Sketty in Swansea, is immobile and needs two people with a hoist to get her up.
He says her surgery called on Tuesday offering a jab but they were told it would take time to arrange a house visit.
Some GPs appear to be completely indifferent to vaccination, whereas others are completely on top of everyone. People who have mobility issues need to be top of the priority list.
I think it's very difficult to deal with home visits with the pfizer vaccine's requirements.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.
If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.
Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.
Exactly.
I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!
As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.
That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
Yes, the problem was the degree of integration. Unfortunately, we were given a take it or leave it choice, with the very strong likelihood the integration would continue further in future - perhaps under different administrations - and no-one felt they'd be asked again for decades. So we decided to leave it.
I think our long-term "par" relationship across party lines would be a common market (with votes) with some regulatory flexibility at national level as well as EU level, free movement for temporary workers (not "citizens") and with caps if it gets really silly) and multilateral collaboration on political matters of mutual interest. But not legal, social, cultural, fiscal, or broader federal union.
The most silly example at the moment is the SPS rules (which other than the political argument of "cherrypicking" I can't understand why it can't be done on an equivalence and LPF basis, with extra checks in future if we diverge) because our fresh meat and fish is part of the same ecosystem and rules at present and no more dangerous or risky than it was on 31st December.
The UK is giving 200 vaccinations every minute, Health Secretary Matt Hancock says
He says the UK has now given more than five million doses of the vaccine to 4.6 million people.
It comes as 65 new vaccination centres are due to open in England today, including a mosque in Birmingham and a cinema in Aylesbury.
And as noted yesterday - they are also rolling out in-home vaccinations.
Yes, having vaccination teams door knocking is going to really get those last 30% of over 80s done quickly. It's also something that doesn't need to rely on local infrastructure.
Get the Army medics on this, alongside a national notline where people can report elderly and vulnerable who have slipped through the cracks.
NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
As I have already said that is because he doesn't qualify for it under the 1964 law.
Not only that but the EU knew that and knew it was the UK's status when the EU/UK negotiations were going on last year.
If this is such a big deal for them I don't understand why Barnier didn't bring it up. I'm sure a passage on page 1,178 of the negotiations could have been added granting the EU diplomatic status as part of the agreement - and I doubt anyone would have cared about it at all.
Obviously this wasn't that big of a deal to Barnier. Seems to just be a fit by people with nothing better to complain about now, including from that source a "European Commission spokesman" who still seems to think the UK is a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. Either can't be a very senior spokesman or the EU need better spokespeople.
How does one 'inadvertently' write a 3000 word article?
The central charge, so far as I can make it out, is that Sturgeon met the former leader of the SNP at her Official residence without civil servants being present. That this was a crime so heinous that it had "parallels with Watergate" goes beyond hyperbole into hysteria.
She has admitted this to the extent she has admitted the earlier meeting and accepted that she was told then. Should she then have seen Salmond in a private meeting? Possibly not according to the MInisterial code but these are people who were friends and worked together for 20 years who would inevitably be concerned about the possible damage to their common cause. I don't find it at all surprising they would want to talk through the implications.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it.
Biden's speech was also a touch too long - though probably necessary in the circumstances.
Rather than obsessing about busts, it's worth noting that he referenced Magna Carta in it, thus showing that he understands rather more about the origins of US law and democracy than those petty-minded politicians here worrying about busts. Perhaps the next time a Tory politician mentions Churchill's bust a US politician might remind him of Churchill's decision not to go to Roosevelt's funeral. That might shut them up.
It would be nice if British politicians had more regard for the principles of Magna Carta. The current government - and previous ones as well - have embarked on a deliberate policy of neglect and downgrading of our criminal justice system, with the inevitable consequences as reported a couple of days ago, and largely ignored. People are having to wait 3 - 4 years for trials. Instead, we've reached the ludicrous Ruritanian position where court buildings which have been sold off are now being refurbished so that they can be used as courtrooms in legal dramas filmed by Netflix but not as actual real courtrooms for real trial involving real people in the U.K.
Utterly shameful.
I thought that her poem made the points Biden was trying to make more sharply and better than he did but like Biden's effort it was too long.
And btw, if Netfix are making dramas in Arbroath Sheriff Court they are being awfully quiet about it.
People just don't seem to get that courts, like almost everything else, change over time and need far more IT and technical support than you can efficiently provide in grand Victorian buildings. The new, purpose built, Justice Centre (and it hurts just to write that) in Inverness is one of the only Sheriff Courts which can provide the video conferencing we were lamenting earlier today. Of course it looks sad and dreary compared with the old court which was in the Castle overlooking the river Ness but it is far more functional and efficient.
A point is going to come when a lot of relatively trivial crime is going to get dumped on the basis that it is just too old and the evidence is too stale. This is an inevitable consequence of the pandemic.
Surely the time is ripe for a courtroom drama about smoked haddock magnates and their shenanigans, possibly even with a Brexit slant? My mouth’s watering already (though that may just be the thought of Smokies).
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
At the risk of giving away my own position I am not a fan of independence, the SNP government or Nicola Sturgeon (I do acknowledge her skills as a politician). And yet that article is bordering on crap.
His statement: "It is worth adding that he was not acquitted because his actions were ‘dodgy’ yet failed to meet the threshold of criminality but because the jury believed his defence that none of them happened" is completely inconsistent with the brilliant jury speech by Gordon Jackson QC who acted for him and plainly has no basis in fact as the jury were not polled.
The claims that the Lord Advocate and Crown Office were involved in some nebulous but vast conspiracy are ridiculous. I have known, slightly, Alex Prentice QC who prosecuted for the Crown for more than 25 years. He is careful, measured and scrupulous. Pretending that there was not a case for Salmond to answer (which seems the starting point of this conspiracy) is delusional.
The central charge, so far as I can make it out, is that Sturgeon met the former leader of the SNP at her Official residence without civil servants being present. That this was a crime so heinous that it had "parallels with Watergate" goes beyond hyperbole into hysteria.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the way that our Civil Service no longer seems to see any distinction between the SNP as a party and the government. I really don't like how independence supporting placemen have filled the offices of Scotland's quangocracy and use their positions to promote their cause. We do have major problems with the functionality of our democracy. But I do not find it surprising that any organisation would have reservations about anyone so delusional representing that organisation's interests.
As one would expect from someone in Mr L's position a careful and reasonable dissection of an article which, on the face of it seems to have been written in haste rather than 'inadvertently". And I can well understand, and sympathise with, the concern expressed in the first two sentences of the last paragraph.
Lockdown. Definitely not the vaccine as deaths are still going up.
Deaths are a lagging indicator and not a good measure for vaccine effectiveness for a while because there are loads of cases in or entering the funnel right now.
There is some quite encouraging data buried in the headline Israel figures:
According to preliminary results published last week from a study of 600,000 recipients of the Pfizer vaccine, of 4,500 Israelis who tested positive after receiving their first vaccine dose, 244 were admitted to hospital because of the coronavirus in the first week following the jab,.. In the second week after the jab, 124 people were taken to hospital, but after that only seven more people fell ill enough to stay in hospital.
That suggests to me a very high real-world efficacy in terms of serious cases, which are after all the most important from a personal protection point of view.
This appears to be the key story to me.
Just the sort of numbers we need to see and reflective of the trial data, which speaks to a fortnight latency before any immunity is achieved.
I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.
If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.
Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.
Exactly.
I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!
As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.
That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
I think one has to accept limits to free trade. Ultimately, there comes a point where the loss of self-government become more important than marginal boosts to GDP.
You can also make the point by arguing the counterfactual.
World GDP, and British GDP, would increase even faster if we had global free movement, a world currency and pan-global regulatory union.
NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
Yes, a lot of the 4-5k daily leftovers are going on second jabs for NHS staff aiui, one of my cousins was able to get his done last night along with other front line staff working, there were around 100 or so leftovers that needed to be used to chucked so they just lined up all of the staff and got through them after closing time.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.
If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.
Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.
Exactly.
I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!
As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.
That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
I would be interested to know how much political unity - by which we mean actual political attachment via legally binding institutions - you think there is between the EU and the EFTA members?
There is a trade off between the two. Ie you can integrate to a certain extent on the economic level but the more economic integration you want and a say in how the rules are determined, the more involvement you will need in the bodies making those rules - either by being a member of those bodies or on those bodies in some other capacity.
This then raises the question of the democratic oversight of the bodies making those rules. Many of the rules in the financial sector, for instance, are made by expert bodies with little or no direct democratic oversight at all.
We can have quite a lot of economic/trade integration with the EU but at the cost of relatively little say in the decision-making over the rules and/or relatively little democratic oversight. Or not, as the case may be.
But my - perhaps simplistic - point is that trade, especially the more integrated it becomes necessarily involves political decisions and a degree of surrendering a certain freedom of manoeuvre in order to get other desirable things. Britain - with its history - should surely understand that.
It is not a lack of understanding on the part of the UK. At least not on this point. Personally I would prefer the EFTA relationship and one of the reasons for that is that it does remove us from the Political integration. To say that you cannot be a member of the Single Market without political unity as you said is simply wrong. The EEA proves that. Which is of course the whole point of it.
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.
Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
Indeed. Martina Navratilova did a superb documentary for the BBC (?) on this, well worth digging out if you can.
She pointed out that she was at the very top in terms of testosterone for a woman, and that a transwoman even after prolonged hormone treatment had higher levels by an order of magnitude.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it.
Biden's speech was also a touch too long - though probably necessary in the circumstances.
Rather than obsessing about busts, it's worth noting that he referenced Magna Carta in it, thus showing that he understands rather more about the origins of US law and democracy than those petty-minded politicians here worrying about busts. Perhaps the next time a Tory politician mentions Churchill's bust a US politician might remind him of Churchill's decision not to go to Roosevelt's funeral. That might shut them up.
It would be nice if British politicians had more regard for the principles of Magna Carta. The current government - and previous ones as well - have embarked on a deliberate policy of neglect and downgrading of our criminal justice system, with the inevitable consequences as reported a couple of days ago, and largely ignored. People are having to wait 3 - 4 years for trials. Instead, we've reached the ludicrous Ruritanian position where court buildings which have been sold off are now being refurbished so that they can be used as courtrooms in legal dramas filmed by Netflix but not as actual real courtrooms for real trial involving real people in the U.K.
Utterly shameful.
I thought that her poem made the points Biden was trying to make more sharply and better than he did but like Biden's effort it was too long.
And btw, if Netfix are making dramas in Arbroath Sheriff Court they are being awfully quiet about it.
People just don't seem to get that courts, like almost everything else, change over time and need far more IT and technical support than you can efficiently provide in grand Victorian buildings. The new, purpose built, Justice Centre (and it hurts just to write that) in Inverness is one of the only Sheriff Courts which can provide the video conferencing we were lamenting earlier today. Of course it looks sad and dreary compared with the old court which was in the Castle overlooking the river Ness but it is far more functional and efficient.
A point is going to come when a lot of relatively trivial crime is going to get dumped on the basis that it is just too old and the evidence is too stale. This is an inevitable consequence of the pandemic.
Surely the time is ripe for a courtroom drama about smoked haddock magnates and their shenanigans, possibly even with a Brexit slant? My mouth’s watering already (though that may just be the thought of Smokies).
Oh yes, and don't forget the potted hough either. Personally, I want the role of the Kipper, an oily fish that gets cut down the middle!
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
The Royal Navy contribution at Okinawa was significant.
The Commonwealth Corps allocated to invading the Tokyo plain felt rather more token.
It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.
It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.
Sad.
I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.
Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.
Your priorities are all wrong.
Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.
Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.
Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.
My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.
Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.
You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.
Wow, what a patronising, and ironic, last sentence.
With respect, I won't take any lectures on being patronising from someone who tells me my priorities are all wrong because I'm addressing a difficult issue and intimates my sympathies must lie with the EDL or neo-fascists as a result.
I did not intimate your sympathies lie with the EDL or neo-fascists. I don't think they do for a moment - quite the opposite, actually. I was merely saying that Biden should not pander so such people in the USA when seeking to unite the nation. It wasn't about you. At all.
NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
Yes, a lot of the 4-5k daily leftovers are going on second jabs for NHS staff aiui, one of my cousins was able to get his done last night along with other front line staff working, there were around 100 or so leftovers that needed to be used to chucked so they just lined up all of the staff and got through them after closing time.
Fantastic news if true. Does match with the Pfizer trial data too.
An interesting thing that I don't think I've seen anyone mention but from the Pfizer trial data there was no immune response in days 1-7 from initial injection, it takes time between injection happening and the immune response beginning . . . but there was an immediate 90% immune response from days 1-7 after the second injection.
Now logically either the second injection is having an immediate and dramatic response despite not really having had time to work yet . . . or the 90% protection seen in days 22-28 was from the initial injection having had 21 days to work and the second injection wasn't very relevant in those days.
If one dose is 90% and the second dose gives an extra 5% then the UK is most definitely doing the right thing and will save tens of thousands of lives from its rollout. Hundreds of thousands globally if it gets copied.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
63% of care home residents had first jab....bit disappointing number.
Which is where mobile vaccination teams come into play. The last 30-40% is going to be much harder to reach than the first 60% of each of the currently targeted groups.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it. ...
Interesting. Despite the fact that I'm a fully signed-up old fogey, I thought it was rather good, with some parts very good. It was a bit too long, but there were some truly striking phrases, such as 'a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished'.
Stylistically, it was clearly based on rap, with soft, falling rhymes and pseudo-rhymes:
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit. It’s the past we step into and how we repair it. We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it. Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
OK, it was perhaps a bit on the mawkish side, but no more than so than many celebratory poems written for ceremonial occasions, including the vast bulk of the official output of our own Poet Laureates since time immemorial.
I listen to and recite poetry to myself quite a lot. It is something I've done since childhood. I listened to it and found it really hard to listen to. It just became words washing over me. It felt like a speech rather than a poem.
Poems - to me - especially when well spoken force you to really listen, really focus. Whereas this quickly became background noise to me.
But it's very personal I accept.
I know you think I'm a philistine on this but I really struggle with most poetry. I usually need to have it explained to me to appreciate it, with some rare exceptions, and even then I'm sometimes a bit meh. Maybe that's because I'm an engineer and deal in logical statements!
John Betjeman I enjoyed, chiefly because I could relate to the subject matter, and found his poems rather amusing.
Some of the WW1 poetry has stayed with me too. But it's too dark and disturbing for me to want to re-read regularly.
There's no shame in needing to have the subtexts and allusions in poetry explained to you. Often it is of a particular time and place and you couldn't be expected to know what it's about. But far from putting you off, I'd hope that this would encourage you on; the hard-won perspectives are often the most valuable.
I do think that you are one of those on here most prone to absolutist thinking, which is always a risk when someone is too focused on facts, equations, physics. Literature can help, and a decent place to start would be Hard Times by Dickens, along with a detailed commentary about the themes Dickens is exploring in that book. It took me a few goes to get it, and I'm really no fan of Dickens' style, but it's worth it.
The UK is giving 200 vaccinations every minute, Health Secretary Matt Hancock says
He says the UK has now given more than five million doses of the vaccine to 4.6 million people.
It comes as 65 new vaccination centres are due to open in England today, including a mosque in Birmingham and a cinema in Aylesbury.
And as noted yesterday - they are also rolling out in-home vaccinations.
Yes, having vaccination teams door knocking is going to really get those last 30% of over 80s done quickly. It's also something that doesn't need to rely on local infrastructure.
It does depend though whether it is supply or manpower that is on your critical path. It is likely to be a 10 fold difference in numbers done, but if the person doing it is not doing vaccinations in a centre then it is a no brainer.
But that's an issue of manpower which we can throw bodies at. Hiring an extra few teams to knock on doors doesn't preclude opening more vaccination centres. As k said yesterday, it's like having a multicore processor vs a single core one. You run as many threads in parallel as feasible and door knocking will be the difference between getting to 70-80% of immobile groups jabbed and 95-100% done.
Can we? If we can then I agree completely. Agree with your point on parallel processing. But do we have the extra manpower resources who can vaccinate. I have no idea if that is the case or not. Having said that my wife could I guess and there has been no call for medics in pharma companies to help out as far as I know (last winter the medics in her firm were asking about volunteering and being released, but weren't needed.)
Thanks Scott. Refreshing to agree with you again on something.
This is a real issue but to say that Biden has "unilaterally eviscerated womens sports and placed a new glass ceiling on girls" is indicative of someone not too interested in resolving it.
How do you propose to resolve the sport issue?
How does a biological woman compete with a biological man on a "level playing field"?
And if its so easy to do, why do we have women's sport and men's sport, why don't we just merge them and call it sport and have all women and men competing equally?
Imo athletics seems to have got to a sensible conclusion. Using scientific analysis they have allowed trans athletes to compete naturally against women in the events where the differences in performance are very small but said they cant compete naturally against women in others, particularly middle distance.
A pragmatic if messy approach, but not starting from the dogmatic positions of either "side" of the debate.
NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
Yes, a lot of the 4-5k daily leftovers are going on second jabs for NHS staff aiui, one of my cousins was able to get his done last night along with other front line staff working, there were around 100 or so leftovers that needed to be used to chucked so they just lined up all of the staff and got through them after closing time.
From the the government dashboard, there's between 4-5k second jabs being done per day. Anecdotally I can see NHS staff getting second jabs and they would always be the easiest group to receive them.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
He's been treated the same was as any ambassador from a multinational grouping, like the UN or NATO.
By which you mean that there isn't a UN or NATO ambassador to the UK? But then, we're members of both the UN and NATO.
Apologies, I was going off Carnyx' comment about the UK having UN and NATO ambassadors. The wiki list suggests there are a couple of international organizations that maintain a mission, including the UN and World Bank:
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.
Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
Indeed. Martina Navratilova did a superb documentary for the BBC (?) on this, well worth digging out if you can.
She pointed out that she was at the very top in terms of testosterone for a woman, and that a transwoman even after prolonged hormone treatment had higher levels by an order of magnitude.
Not a level playing field, far from it.
Not only that but the transwoman will have had major physical advantages from before the hormone treatment even began. This how dope cheats get an advantage - they build up muscles by doping in advance, then ensure their blood is clean by the time they compete but still have the advantages. Building muscle is dramatically harder to do than maintaining it. That is why anti-doping regimes entail testing outside of competitions and not just on the day of competitions.
I have no qualms with an athlete like olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner, if that is how she wants to live her life then that is OK with me.
I do have an issue with a modern Bruce becoming a modern Caitlyn and then competing in women's competitions. It isn't fair.
At the risk of giving away my own position I am not a fan of independence, the SNP government or Nicola Sturgeon (I do acknowledge her skills as a politician). And yet that article is bordering on crap.
His statement: "It is worth adding that he was not acquitted because his actions were ‘dodgy’ yet failed to meet the threshold of criminality but because the jury believed his defence that none of them happened" is completely inconsistent with the brilliant jury speech by Gordon Jackson QC who acted for him and plainly has no basis in fact as the jury were not polled.
The claims that the Lord Advocate and Crown Office were involved in some nebulous but vast conspiracy are ridiculous. I have known, slightly, Alex Prentice QC who prosecuted for the Crown for more than 25 years. He is careful, measured and scrupulous. Pretending that there was not a case for Salmond to answer (which seems the starting point of this conspiracy) is delusional.
The central charge, so far as I can make it out, is that Sturgeon met the former leader of the SNP at her Official residence without civil servants being present. That this was a crime so heinous that it had "parallels with Watergate" goes beyond hyperbole into hysteria.
I am extremely uncomfortable with the way that our Civil Service no longer seems to see any distinction between the SNP as a party and the government. I really don't like how independence supporting placemen have filled the offices of Scotland's quangocracy and use their positions to promote their cause. We do have major problems with the functionality of our democracy. But I do not find it surprising that any organisation would have reservations about anyone so delusional representing that organisation's interests.
As one would expect from someone in Mr L's position a careful and reasonable dissection of an article which, on the face of it seems to have been written in haste rather than 'inadvertently". And I can well understand, and sympathise with, the concern expressed in the first two sentences of the last paragraph.
The concerns expressed in those sentences may have some validity but the situation is really a consequence of a party being in overall power for a longish period rather than any hegemonic plot. It was thus when Labour controlled Scotland for decades and before them controlled by a largely Tory and Unionist establishment. It probably doesn’t help that opposition parties are utterly resistant to working with the SNP and that they’re a bit crap, but those are other stories.
FIREFIGHTERS are battling to save a factory producing the Oxford Covid vaccine in North Wales from flooding caused by Storm Christoph. Emergency services raced to Wrexham Industrial Estate last night to protect the jab - as 2,000 homes across England were evacuated following torrential rainfall overnight.
You can't say Gaia's not trying but the infestation is persistent and adaptive. So far homo sapiens has retained the upper hand.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I saw this recently: a set of eye-witness accounts of kamikaze attacks on an RN aircraft carrier. It turns out having an armoured flight deck can be quite useful...
I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.
If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.
Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.
Exactly.
I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!
As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.
That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
Yes, the problem was the degree of integration. Unfortunately, we were given a take it or leave it choice, with the very strong likelihood the integration would continue further in future - perhaps under different administrations - and no-one felt they'd be asked again for decades. So we decided to leave it.
I think our long-term "par" relationship across party lines would be a common market (with votes) with some regulatory flexibility at national level as well as EU level, free movement for temporary workers (not "citizens") and with caps if it gets really silly) and multilateral collaboration on political matters of mutual interest. But not legal, social, cultural, fiscal, or broader federal union.
The most silly example at the moment is the SPS rules (which other than the political argument of "cherrypicking" I can't understand why it can't be done on an equivalence and LPF basis, with extra checks in future if we diverge) because our fresh meat and fish is part of the same ecosystem and rules at present and no more dangerous or risky than it was on 31st December.
I think that's a fair summary of the "par" attitude - I'd be in favour of full union (and ultimately of world government in perhaps 100 years) but accept that it's a position on one extreme. I think the Brexit rhetoric has made the EU feel they need to err on the side of caution with "equivalence", since there seems to be an element of UK thinking that actively wants divergence ("otherwise why bother with Brexit"), and proving harm is a tedious, fractious and difficult process. If the onus on the "diverger" was to get acceptance that it wasn't causing any harm, that would be uncontroversial.
To give a concrete example in my area of interest: the EU is phasing out the practice of dosing all animals in a herd with antibiotics in case overcrowding might cause an infection to rip through the herd (because mass use of antibiotics leaks through to humans and increases the risk of antibiotic resistance). Britain is umming and ahing about dfoing the same and probably won't. Will that divergence cause harm to the EU? Hard to prove until there's actually example of antibiotic resistance spreading as a result. But it's understandable that they are worried about it.
NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
Yes, a lot of the 4-5k daily leftovers are going on second jabs for NHS staff aiui, one of my cousins was able to get his done last night along with other front line staff working, there were around 100 or so leftovers that needed to be used to chucked so they just lined up all of the staff and got through them after closing time.
I presume that what is happening is that, as before, they are giving spare vaccinations to NHS staff. If they have had their first jab more than 21 days ago, then they get their second.
The UK is giving 200 vaccinations every minute, Health Secretary Matt Hancock says
He says the UK has now given more than five million doses of the vaccine to 4.6 million people.
It comes as 65 new vaccination centres are due to open in England today, including a mosque in Birmingham and a cinema in Aylesbury.
And as noted yesterday - they are also rolling out in-home vaccinations.
Yes, having vaccination teams door knocking is going to really get those last 30% of over 80s done quickly. It's also something that doesn't need to rely on local infrastructure.
It does depend though whether it is supply or manpower that is on your critical path. It is likely to be a 10 fold difference in numbers done, but if the person doing it is not doing vaccinations in a centre then it is a no brainer.
But that's an issue of manpower which we can throw bodies at. Hiring an extra few teams to knock on doors doesn't preclude opening more vaccination centres. As k said yesterday, it's like having a multicore processor vs a single core one. You run as many threads in parallel as feasible and door knocking will be the difference between getting to 70-80% of immobile groups jabbed and 95-100% done.
Can we? If we can then I agree completely. Agree with your point on parallel processing. But do we have the extra manpower resources who can vaccinate. I have no idea if that is the case or not. Having said that my wife could I guess and there has been no call for medics in pharma companies to help out as far as I know (last winter the medics in her firm were asking about volunteering and being released, but weren't needed.)
Yeah I think we can, aiui the government has been training over 100k vaccine jabbers for the AZ vaccine so there will an excess of bodies we can throw at the problem. What we will struggle with for another month or so is supply. I think we're limited to around 3-3.5m doses per week for the next month.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it.
Biden's speech was also a touch too long - though probably necessary in the circumstances.
Rather than obsessing about busts, it's worth noting that he referenced Magna Carta in it, thus showing that he understands rather more about the origins of US law and democracy than those petty-minded politicians here worrying about busts. Perhaps the next time a Tory politician mentions Churchill's bust a US politician might remind him of Churchill's decision not to go to Roosevelt's funeral. That might shut them up.
It would be nice if British politicians had more regard for the principles of Magna Carta. The current government - and previous ones as well - have embarked on a deliberate policy of neglect and downgrading of our criminal justice system, with the inevitable consequences as reported a couple of days ago, and largely ignored. People are having to wait 3 - 4 years for trials. Instead, we've reached the ludicrous Ruritanian position where court buildings which have been sold off are now being refurbished so that they can be used as courtrooms in legal dramas filmed by Netflix but not as actual real courtrooms for real trial involving real people in the U.K.
Utterly shameful.
I thought that her poem made the points Biden was trying to make more sharply and better than he did but like Biden's effort it was too long.
And btw, if Netfix are making dramas in Arbroath Sheriff Court they are being awfully quiet about it.
People just don't seem to get that courts, like almost everything else, change over time and need far more IT and technical support than you can efficiently provide in grand Victorian buildings. The new, purpose built, Justice Centre (and it hurts just to write that) in Inverness is one of the only Sheriff Courts which can provide the video conferencing we were lamenting earlier today. Of course it looks sad and dreary compared with the old court which was in the Castle overlooking the river Ness but it is far more functional and efficient.
A point is going to come when a lot of relatively trivial crime is going to get dumped on the basis that it is just too old and the evidence is too stale. This is an inevitable consequence of the pandemic.
Surely the time is ripe for a courtroom drama about smoked haddock magnates and their shenanigans, possibly even with a Brexit slant? My mouth’s watering already (though that may just be the thought of Smokies).
Oh yes, and don't forget the potted hough either. Personally, I want the role of the Kipper, an oily fish that gets cut down the middle!
Fantastic news if true. Does match with the Pfizer trial data too.
An interesting thing that I don't think I've seen anyone mention but from the Pfizer trial data there was no immune response in days 1-7 from initial injection, it takes time between injection happening and the immune response beginning . . . but there was an immediate 90% immune response from days 1-7 after the second injection.
Now logically either the second injection is having an immediate and dramatic response despite not really having had time to work yet . . . or the 90% protection seen in days 22-28 was from the initial injection having had 21 days to work and the second injection wasn't very relevant in those days.
If one dose is 90% and the second dose gives an extra 5% then the UK is most definitely doing the right thing and will save tens of thousands of lives from its rollout. Hundreds of thousands globally if it gets copied.
I don't think I've seen anyone spelling it out in words, but a few graphs have been put on here showing an elbow shape in the detected infections after about a week; the placebo groups continue in a straight line, and the therapeutic groups show a sharp bend towards flat.
NHS workers are getting the second dose, my wife has had hers and my daughter is having hers next week. I know of numerous other GP Surgeries whose staff have had both injections.
Yes, a lot of the 4-5k daily leftovers are going on second jabs for NHS staff aiui, one of my cousins was able to get his done last night along with other front line staff working, there were around 100 or so leftovers that needed to be used to chucked so they just lined up all of the staff and got through them after closing time.
I know leftover vaccine has been given to volunteer marshals so it makes sense. I mean why waste it?
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it. ...
Interesting. Despite the fact that I'm a fully signed-up old fogey, I thought it was rather good, with some parts very good. It was a bit too long, but there were some truly striking phrases, such as 'a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished'.
Stylistically, it was clearly based on rap, with soft, falling rhymes and pseudo-rhymes:
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit. It’s the past we step into and how we repair it. We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it. Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
OK, it was perhaps a bit on the mawkish side, but no more than so than many celebratory poems written for ceremonial occasions, including the vast bulk of the official output of our own Poet Laureates since time immemorial.
I agree. it's not entirely to my taste, either, but I am something of a convert to the poetic rhythms of rap. In style, it owes something to Hamilton (which it directly references a couple of times). A pretty impressive effort from a 22 year old. Who apparently has presidential ambitions of her own.
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.
Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
There is an issue but hyperbole does not help. Trans athletes have competed in womens sport since the start of womens sport, yet womens sport miraculously does exist and has actually flourished in the last couple of decades.
Address it on a sport by sport, case by case basis. Middle distance athletics was clearly dominated by trans athletes so the rules were changed. They continue to do scientific research to see if the rules should be strengthened or relaxed, not from an ideological basis but a scientific one. Well done them.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I saw this recently: a set of eye-witness accounts of kamikaze attacks on an RN aircraft carrier. It turns out having an armoured flight deck can be quite useful...
It's quite clear the Democrats have been wholly captured by the Wokeists; this will be the most toe-curlingly Woke and wanky US administration there has ever been.
It will do nothing to solve America's divisions or heal them, except exacerbate them further. The only question is whether the Republicans can capitalise on it in November 2022, or whether their own fratricidal civil war will consume them, giving more space to the nutters in the Dems.
Sad.
I think you've been wholly captured by anti-wokeism. Did you watch yesterday? Lots of humility and decency on show, and a good celebration of modern, diverse USA. Biden will do what he says, and govern for all decent Americans. But yes, he won't pander to the EDL equivalents or neo-fascists of the far right. Because they're not decent.
Like our government, you're obsessed by symbols/statues. But it's not substance. Let me give you an example. While Jenrick puts forward legislation on statues, he does sweet FA to tackle real issues of substance, For example, tens of thousands of people are trapped in buildings with cladding that needs removing; they can't sell, and many face huge bills. Following Grenfell, how much progress has been made in resolving this? Not a lot.
Your priorities are all wrong.
Yes, I watched yesterday. I thought it was an acceptable speech, but not an especially historically memorable one; it just looks like that right now because everyone is so relieved he's not Trump.
Your comparison is an entirely false one. Opposition to "Wokeism" ≠ support for the EDL or neo-fascists, and it's offensive to say it does. I explored the difference on here last night - you should read what I said.
Governments, can and do, enact hundreds of policies across dozens of policy areas all at once, and are both capable of doing so and expected to do it. As it happens, I think the Government should make the relief of leaseholders trapped in flats by poor cladding a high priority and get it fixed with a Government guarantee. However, I also think he should address politically-motivated cultural desecration as well. What people mean by "he's got his priorities all wrong" is "we'd prefer if he didn't address this issue" There's no reason Robert Paden Powell, Redvers Buller, Oliver Cromwell, or Admiral Nelson, should be removed without due democratic process just so councillors can signal their virtue and appease their fanatical base. This was a gap in the law and urgently needed addressing before many more irrevocably came down.
My priorities are not wrong. I also want a united, less divided society. Symbols matter, and rather than negatively tearing things down and dividing people we should be adding to them with new symbols that say things about us today, and celebrate the best of us.
Your blindness to how both sides are aggravating it at present with their language and action is a huge part of the problem.
You'd be well-advised to be more reflective and balanced in your posts on the matter, in future.
Wow, what a patronising, and ironic, last sentence.
With respect, I won't take any lectures on being patronising from someone who tells me my priorities are all wrong because I'm addressing a difficult issue and intimates my sympathies must lie with the EDL or neo-fascists as a result.
I did not intimate your sympathies lie with the EDL or neo-fascists. I don't think they do for a moment - quite the opposite, actually. I was merely saying that Biden should not pander so such people in the USA when seeking to unite the nation. It wasn't about you. At all.
Being "anti woke" does not equate to far right leanings, I agree with that, although I'd imagine almost all far righters are that way inclined. SOTBO, I suppose. But for me, the big bugbear is false equivalence between where Trump has taken the Republican Party and where the Democrats are. I don't see it and the reason I don't see it is it isn't there. Therefore if someone does see it, it makes me question what lens they're using.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
We are the only Country to do this.
Start as we mean to go on, as an International outlier, a denier of reality, obstinate and untrustworthy.
Brexit in a nutshell.
What I don't understand is if we have ambassadors to the UN and NATO as well as their member states, they wny not EU? The conclusion is that not to have one for the EU is merely petty spite and wrecks relationships further in the interests of making Brexiters feel less awful about themselves.
But the UK does have an ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow.
Sorry - should have typed one from the EU. But the logic stands.
The EU does have an ambassador to the UK, João Vale de Almeida.
He's been treated the same was as any ambassador from a multinational grouping, like the UN or NATO.
By which you mean that there isn't a UN or NATO ambassador to the UK? But then, we're members of both the UN and NATO.
Apologies, I was going off Carnyx' comment about the UK having UN and NATO ambassadors. The wiki list suggests there are a couple of international organizations that maintain a mission, including the UN and World Bank:
In any case, the BBC article is quite clear the reasoning behind it;
"It is understood not to want to set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state."
But we have, and want to continue having, an ambassador to the EU. And, while our ambassadors to the UN and NATO are actually delegates who have ambassadorial status, our ambassador to the EU is actually an ambassador. So some asymmetric, and rather tortured, reasoning on the part f the UK Government which, like a lot of its policy re the EU, seems designed really for a short term PR gain at the cost of long term benefit.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it. ...
Interesting. Despite the fact that I'm a fully signed-up old fogey, I thought it was rather good, with some parts very good. It was a bit too long, but there were some truly striking phrases, such as 'a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished'.
Stylistically, it was clearly based on rap, with soft, falling rhymes and pseudo-rhymes:
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit. It’s the past we step into and how we repair it. We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it. Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
OK, it was perhaps a bit on the mawkish side, but no more than so than many celebratory poems written for ceremonial occasions, including the vast bulk of the official output of our own Poet Laureates since time immemorial.
I listen to and recite poetry to myself quite a lot. It is something I've done since childhood. I listened to it and found it really hard to listen to. It just became words washing over me. It felt like a speech rather than a poem.
Poems - to me - especially when well spoken force you to really listen, really focus. Whereas this quickly became background noise to me.
But it's very personal I accept.
I know you think I'm a philistine on this but I really struggle with most poetry. I usually need to have it explained to me to appreciate it, with some rare exceptions, and even then I'm sometimes a bit meh. Maybe that's because I'm an engineer and deal in logical statements!
John Betjeman I enjoyed, chiefly because I could relate to the subject matter, and found his poems rather amusing.
Some of the WW1 poetry has stayed with me too. But it's too dark and disturbing for me to want to re-read regularly.
There's no shame in needing to have the subtexts and allusions in poetry explained to you. Often it is of a particular time and place and you couldn't be expected to know what it's about. But far from putting you off, I'd hope that this would encourage you on; the hard-won perspectives are often the most valuable.
I do think that you are one of those on here most prone to absolutist thinking, which is always a risk when someone is too focused on facts, equations, physics. Literature can help, and a decent place to start would be Hard Times by Dickens, along with a detailed commentary about the themes Dickens is exploring in that book. It took me a few goes to get it, and I'm really no fan of Dickens' style, but it's worth it.
Thanks. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of fiction either. I like to read history, politics, biographies, reports, analysis and manuals.
It's probably more accurate to say I have a utilitarian approach to reading for pleasure. If I'm going to invest the time in doing it, I want to get something (broader knowledge) out of it.
How does one 'inadvertently' write a 3000 word article?
I really don't like how independence supporting placemen have filled the offices of Scotland's quangocracy and use their positions to promote their cause.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
I read Barbara Tuchman's biography of him some years ago now and it rather changed my views. Yes there was some distinctly dodgy stuff, especially around the time he was a judge and there was corruption very close to him whilst in office but he achieved a remarkable amount and generally made the right calls.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I saw this recently: a set of eye-witness accounts of kamikaze attacks on an RN aircraft carrier. It turns out having an armoured flight deck can be quite useful...
There is whole argument about that within the naval historian community - some hold that while the armoured flight decks were useful for reducing the effects of smaller hits, the box girder they created could distort easily as a result of fire - doing massive (but less obvious) damage to the carrier.
Oh goodie we are back to this nonsense....why is Boris at a vaccination centre, why is he visiting flood damaged areas....cos he is the sodding Prime Minister....i notice no criticism of Starmer for doing the same.
As soon as he doesn't appear in public for 2 days, you post tweets saying lazy Boris not on the job.
I don't think the EU should have ambassadorial status and I don't think it's petty. For good or ill we did Brexit and we marked ourselves out as a nation state. We live with that and by that. The EU should be no exception.
If you believe in Brexit, which I didn't, then it's consistent and right.
Actually that tweet is wrong. Britain consistently opposed the status of the EEAS as it is known and blocked it having full diplomatic status on organisations such as the UN and OSCE.
Exactly.
I think it's consistent and right that following Brexit we take this decision. I hope Boris sticks to his guns on it, although I'm doubtful he will.
It's important that we start as we mean to go on. Our dealings as an independent country vaguely attached by land to Europe but with many historic and cultural ties beyond need to be on the correct footing from the outset. We'll deal with nations at an ambassadorial level not self-appointed superstates.
I was a Remainer but the EU's worst trait has been its attempt to shift from economic unity to political unity. Vive la difference!
As @rcs1000 has explained a gazillion times, effective economic unity necessarily requires a degree of political unity. See, for instance, the Singke Market. It simply is not possible to have the sort of trading relationship there was in the Singke Market without some degree of political integration. The amount of such integration is the issue, of course.
That is why the claim that we want only the trade and not the political stuff was nonsense. And why now - because we have decided against the political stuff - we are realising the cost to our trade.
Yes, the problem was the degree of integration. Unfortunately, we were given a take it or leave it choice, with the very strong likelihood the integration would continue further in future - perhaps under different administrations - and no-one felt they'd be asked again for decades. So we decided to leave it.
I think our long-term "par" relationship across party lines would be a common market (with votes) with some regulatory flexibility at national level as well as EU level, free movement for temporary workers (not "citizens") and with caps if it gets really silly) and multilateral collaboration on political matters of mutual interest. But not legal, social, cultural, fiscal, or broader federal union.
The most silly example at the moment is the SPS rules (which other than the political argument of "cherrypicking" I can't understand why it can't be done on an equivalence and LPF basis, with extra checks in future if we diverge) because our fresh meat and fish is part of the same ecosystem and rules at present and no more dangerous or risky than it was on 31st December.
I think that's a fair summary of the "par" attitude - I'd be in favour of full union (and ultimately of world government in perhaps 100 years) but accept that it's a position on one extreme. I think the Brexit rhetoric has made the EU feel they need to err on the side of caution with "equivalence", since there seems to be an element of UK thinking that actively wants divergence ("otherwise why bother with Brexit"), and proving harm is a tedious, fractious and difficult process. If the onus on the "diverger" was to get acceptance that it wasn't causing any harm, that would be uncontroversial.
To give a concrete example in my area of interest: the EU is phasing out the practice of dosing all animals in a herd with antibiotics in case overcrowding might cause an infection to rip through the herd (because mass use of antibiotics leaks through to humans and increases the risk of antibiotic resistance). Britain is umming and ahing about dfoing the same and probably won't. Will that divergence cause harm to the EU? Hard to prove until there's actually example of antibiotic resistance spreading as a result. But it's understandable that they are worried about it.
Thanks. I'd argue that the road on SPS checks should be crossed when we come to it (and not before) but we probably need to let the politics and emotions from the exit process settle a bit before we can get back to it.
Oh goodie we are back to this nonsense....why is Boris at a vaccination centre, why is he visiting flood damaged areas....cos he is the sodding Prime Minister....i notice no criticism of Starmer for doing the same.
Given how bad the people complaining think the PM is, surely it's better for him to do harmless visits than actually PMing.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
You obviously know much more about Truman than do I, but I’m struck by his lack of ego compared to his predecessor and probably most of his successors. A case for modesty gets the job done, and possibly comparisons with Attlee on a personal level?
Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
Or the CTA.
Good point. Why include Schengen but not the CTA?
It seems some people want a Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe but with the EU at the centre of it rather than the earth. To them everything orbits the EU and anything else is immaterial.
Lockdown. Definitely not the vaccine as deaths are still going up.
Deaths are a lagging indicator and not a good measure for vaccine effectiveness for a while because there are loads of cases in or entering the funnel right now.
There is some quite encouraging data buried in the headline Israel figures:
According to preliminary results published last week from a study of 600,000 recipients of the Pfizer vaccine, of 4,500 Israelis who tested positive after receiving their first vaccine dose, 244 were admitted to hospital because of the coronavirus in the first week following the jab,.. In the second week after the jab, 124 people were taken to hospital, but after that only seven more people fell ill enough to stay in hospital.
That suggests to me a very high real-world efficacy in terms of serious cases, which are after all the most important from a personal protection point of view.
This appears to be the key story to me.
Just the sort of numbers we need to see and reflective of the trial data, which speaks to a fortnight latency before any immunity is achieved.
Its very similar to the key stat with the AZ vaccine that no one who was vaccinated was admitted to hospital.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
You obviously know much more about Truman than do I, but I’m struck by his lack of ego compared to his predecessor and probably most of his successors. A case for modesty gets the job done, and possibly comparisons with Attlee on a personal level?
I agree. The fact that really sold me on him was that when he was done as President he went back to Missouri and lived off his army pension, refusing any post or job that would have played on his former position as President. So much so that eventually Congress had to introduce a pension for former Presidents as they were the one branch of Government that was specifically excluded from receiving a pension until then.
How does one 'inadvertently' write a 3000 word article?
I really don't like how independence supporting placemen have filled the offices of Scotland's quangocracy and use their positions to promote their cause.
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
'Any educational institution that receives federal funding must admit biologically-male athletes to women's teams, women's scholarships, etc.'
This sounds perfectly fine. What could possibly go wrong?
Carried through to its logical conclusion this will end up with women and men's sports being merged. Once biological men are in women's teams then to succeed all team's will need biological men. You would then end up with women's teams with majority male members. Following that what is the point of having separate men and women's teams events - there should surely just be one? Then women's sport will have been obliterated all as a result of letting a few transgender women compete.
I support the right of anyone to take part in any sport they wish. However, if you want to be involved in competition then I'm afraid it should be done on a combination of birth gender and strictly defined biological characteristics. If you aren't born female and your biological characteristics are not within the defined boundaries for being a woman then you compete against men.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I saw this recently: a set of eye-witness accounts of kamikaze attacks on an RN aircraft carrier. It turns out having an armoured flight deck can be quite useful...
There is whole argument about that within the naval historian community - some hold that while the armoured flight decks were useful for reducing the effects of smaller hits, the box girder they created could distort easily as a result of fire - doing massive (but less obvious) damage to the carrier.
Also the smaller complement of aircraft as a result. Less bang for the buck. But at least it didn't have to go back to Pompey for a refit.
My father was in the RN - for a while on a carrier, with Corsairs like in the film landing on the roof. He was very relieved not to have to serve in the invasion of Japan and would never accept any criticism of the decision to drop the nukes. Oddly enough he ended up visiting Hiroshima on a port visit in another ship some years later.
Lockdown. Definitely not the vaccine as deaths are still going up.
Deaths are a lagging indicator and not a good measure for vaccine effectiveness for a while because there are loads of cases in or entering the funnel right now.
There is some quite encouraging data buried in the headline Israel figures:
According to preliminary results published last week from a study of 600,000 recipients of the Pfizer vaccine, of 4,500 Israelis who tested positive after receiving their first vaccine dose, 244 were admitted to hospital because of the coronavirus in the first week following the jab,.. In the second week after the jab, 124 people were taken to hospital, but after that only seven more people fell ill enough to stay in hospital.
That suggests to me a very high real-world efficacy in terms of serious cases, which are after all the most important from a personal protection point of view.
And of course that is largely an elderly population reflected in those figures.
FIREFIGHTERS are battling to save a factory producing the Oxford Covid vaccine in North Wales from flooding caused by Storm Christoph. Emergency services raced to Wrexham Industrial Estate last night to protect the jab - as 2,000 homes across England were evacuated following torrential rainfall overnight.
You can't say Gaia's not trying but the infestation is persistent and adaptive. So far homo sapiens has retained the upper hand.
How does one 'inadvertently' write a 3000 word article?
I really don't like how independence supporting placemen have filled the offices of Scotland's quangocracy and use their positions to promote their cause.
I'm also struck by the implicit suggestion that public sector management jobs should still be given only to No to Indy voters - now a minority. It's not long since the MoD tried to sack someone for believing in Scottish independence, and that wasn't a senior position either.
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
'Any educational institution that receives federal funding must admit biologically-male athletes to women's teams, women's scholarships, etc.'
This sounds perfectly fine. What could possibly go wrong?
Carried through to its logical conclusion this will end up with women and men's sports being merged. Once biological men are in women's teams then to succeed all team's will need biological men. You would then end up with women's teams with majority male members. Following that what is the point of having separate men and women's teams events - there should surely just be one? Then women's sport will have been obliterated all as a result of letting a few transgender women compete.
I support the right of anyone to take part in any sport they wish. However, if you want to be involved in competition then I'm afraid it should be done on a combination of birth gender and strictly defined biological characteristics. If you aren't born female and your biological characteristics are not within the defined boundaries for being a woman then you compete against men.
There is not only the issue of fairness, in contact sports there is the issue of safety.
Fantastic news if true. Does match with the Pfizer trial data too.
An interesting thing that I don't think I've seen anyone mention but from the Pfizer trial data there was no immune response in days 1-7 from initial injection, it takes time between injection happening and the immune response beginning . . . but there was an immediate 90% immune response from days 1-7 after the second injection.
Now logically either the second injection is having an immediate and dramatic response despite not really having had time to work yet . . . or the 90% protection seen in days 22-28 was from the initial injection having had 21 days to work and the second injection wasn't very relevant in those days.
If one dose is 90% and the second dose gives an extra 5% then the UK is most definitely doing the right thing and will save tens of thousands of lives from its rollout. Hundreds of thousands globally if it gets copied.
I don't think I've seen anyone spelling it out in words, but a few graphs have been put on here showing an elbow shape in the detected infections after about a week; the placebo groups continue in a straight line, and the therapeutic groups show a sharp bend towards flat.
"Figure 3 shows cases of Covid-19 or severe Covid-19 with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe Covid-19 are available in Table S5). Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
Would keeping MacArthur underf control qualify, perhaps?
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
Big numbers that put the times in perspective. eg 19 aircraft carriers of all types, 750 aircraft, 675,000 personnel in the BPF. Also of course sigificant commonwealth and other contribution.
USA not overly happy at the old Empire reasserting itself, which was one aim - that did not stand contact with reality for too many years.
While I like the idea of poems being read at important occasions (and unimportant ones, come to that), I thought Amanda Gorman's poem yesterday was drivel. Though kudos to her for her self-possession while reciting it. ...
Interesting. Despite the fact that I'm a fully signed-up old fogey, I thought it was rather good, with some parts very good. It was a bit too long, but there were some truly striking phrases, such as 'a nation that isn’t broken, but simply unfinished'.
Stylistically, it was clearly based on rap, with soft, falling rhymes and pseudo-rhymes:
It’s because being American is more than a pride we inherit. It’s the past we step into and how we repair it. We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it. Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.
OK, it was perhaps a bit on the mawkish side, but no more than so than many celebratory poems written for ceremonial occasions, including the vast bulk of the official output of our own Poet Laureates since time immemorial.
I listen to and recite poetry to myself quite a lot. It is something I've done since childhood. I listened to it and found it really hard to listen to. It just became words washing over me. It felt like a speech rather than a poem.
Poems - to me - especially when well spoken force you to really listen, really focus. Whereas this quickly became background noise to me.
But it's very personal I accept.
I know you think I'm a philistine on this but I really struggle with most poetry. I usually need to have it explained to me to appreciate it, with some rare exceptions, and even then I'm sometimes a bit meh. Maybe that's because I'm an engineer and deal in logical statements!
John Betjeman I enjoyed, chiefly because I could relate to the subject matter, and found his poems rather amusing.
Some of the WW1 poetry has stayed with me too. But it's too dark and disturbing for me to want to re-read regularly.
I don't think of you as a philistine. It is a shame that's all. There is a musicality and rhythm and muscularity to English which finds some of its best expression in poems, and other writings as well (the King James Bible for instance). At my primary school we learnt a poem each week and learnt to recite it, too. It is a wonderful way of teaching English to children. Think of nursery rhymes as poems and how children respond to them. Poems are words in musical form really. Good speakers have a musical quality to them which listeners respond to, almost without realising it.
I think maybe if you haven't been exposed to poetry when young it is hard to relate to and poems are thought of as difficult. But there are some that have provided real comfort to me at times. Others express my thoughts better than I can myself.
If I had one piece of advice for parents of young children it is to read poems to them or get those tapes of people reading them for them to hear at night. It does wonders for their language and memory skills. English is such a beautiful language. It is lovely when it is well spoken (I don't mean accents which are irrelevant). To me, it is like having a nail scratching a blackboard when I hear people making speeches or public statements with a tin ear for the sense or rhythm of their words.
Entirely off-topic, but later this morning I have several back to back video meetings. One is an invite to Teams
*shudder*
Why is it that everything Microsoft is as complex and user-unfriendly as possible? I don't to integrate into your sodding hell, just let me connect to this meeting that someone else is hosting so that I can then go back to using platforms that actually work.
Pretty much anything else is better than Teams, the problem is that for most companies it’s included in their Office subscription and doesn’t require any money spending on purchasing and installing it.
Depending on the main use cases, Slack, Webex, Skype, Signal or even plain old FaceTime work much better.
I've had no real issues with Teams - I'm either lucky or have low expectations
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
Well if that's the view of what is surely the doughtiest fighter for women's rights on here, perhaps he is on the wrong track. Let me have another think about it.
You should. It does not matter what anyone calls themselves or thinks of themselves as. Words do not change biological reality. If people who are biologically male compete with women, then they will have a physical advantage which no amount of skill or training by women can overcome.
Women's sporting competitions will be no more.
There are 2 extremes here - (i) no trans protections for women's sport or (ii) no trans in women's sport - and I support neither. The first is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma. The second is to disregard genuine concerns for the sake of dogma.
Mr. kinabalu, been more preoccupied with other matters this morning, but there's a reason why men and women are separated in sport. It sounds like Biden's approach is nuts.
'Any educational institution that receives federal funding must admit biologically-male athletes to women's teams, women's scholarships, etc.'
This sounds perfectly fine. What could possibly go wrong?
Carried through to its logical conclusion this will end up with women and men's sports being merged. Once biological men are in women's teams then to succeed all team's will need biological men. You would then end up with women's teams with majority male members. Following that what is the point of having separate men and women's teams events - there should surely just be one? Then women's sport will have been obliterated all as a result of letting a few transgender women compete.
I support the right of anyone to take part in any sport they wish. However, if you want to be involved in competition then I'm afraid it should be done on a combination of birth gender and strictly defined biological characteristics. If you aren't born female and your biological characteristics are not within the defined boundaries for being a woman then you compete against men.
There is not only the issue of fairness, in contact sports there is the issue of safety.
It would be interesting to see what other busts, paintings etc Biden has removed - just as his predecessors did when they entered the White House for the first time. Making a stink out of this or drawing any conclusions about policy from it seems pretty daft to me.
The world runs on realpolitik. Whether or not there is a particular bust sat in a particular office is not going to affect whatever relationship exists between the US and UK.
Replaced by Truman apparently. Fair enough, I'd say. He's one of the iconic Democratic presidents. In fact you like him, I seem to recall. Also allays any fears of super wokeness. Nothing woke about Truman. He dropped the A bomb.
Well even if I did have an issue with moving Churchill (or any other bust) - which of course I don't - I certainly couldn't complain about replacing him with Truman. An excellent choice.
Truman might almost be considered a great President. He was certainly a very good one, and he made the right decision to use the A-bomb.
I did make the case yesterday for him being, in my opinion, the best President of the 20th century. I know it is not a view widely held but I am happy to fight my corner on it.
Ending the war in the Pacific, defending South Korea, and desegregating the army were impressive achievements by any measure. Two things I only found out recently were that huge British forces were earmarked for the invasion of Japan, and the Royal Navy fought at Okinawa.
I would add The Marshall Plan, NATO and the UN as well. Oh and the Berlin Airlift.
And facing down MacArthur. Who might have started a nuclear war all of his own.
He didn't get any thanks at the time, portrayed by the Republicans as a weak president who 'lost' China, but he was a remarkable leader.
I get frustrated with both sides on the issue of men/women/trans. Just treat people as people. I don't give a toss what you are.
And that works for just about everything, except women's sport.
Except for a few specific sports the physical difference is important and the solution can't be to just treat everyone as equal as otherwise half the population has been removed from competitive sport. Yet that still leaves the trans issue.
I don't know what the answer is.
Treat everyone as equal and with respect. Trans women should be able to understand that they are to be treated in general as women despite being biologically male, but for the purposes of sport biology matters. So they can be recognised as women but in doing so would become ineligible for sport - in the same way someone doping is. Its not doping, but its the same biological effect.
I don't see why that is unreasonable?
Seems pretty reasonable. In most walks of life it doesnt and shouldn't matter but it really does there.
Dumb post. There's two new circle that needs drawing in that venn diagram, with our trade agreements with the EU and the EFTA. 🙄
Or the CTA.
But is the CTA actually relevant when it comes to free trade? Isnt it much more to do with passport-free travel, reciprocal rights to settle, vote ect between GB and ROI?
Comments
https://twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1351927574130262022?s=20
https://twitter.com/jamesmatthewsky/status/1351927970613653509?s=20
https://news.sky.com/story/nicola-sturgeon-faces-more-questions-over-alex-salmond-bullying-claims-after-internal-emails-leaked-12192267
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/1352210070172532736
I think our long-term "par" relationship across party lines would be a common market (with votes) with some regulatory flexibility at national level as well as EU level, free movement for temporary workers (not "citizens") and with caps if it gets really silly) and multilateral collaboration on political matters of mutual interest. But not legal, social, cultural, fiscal, or broader federal union.
The most silly example at the moment is the SPS rules (which other than the political argument of "cherrypicking" I can't understand why it can't be done on an equivalence and LPF basis, with extra checks in future if we diverge) because our fresh meat and fish is part of the same ecosystem and rules at present and no more dangerous or risky than it was on 31st December.
If this is such a big deal for them I don't understand why Barnier didn't bring it up. I'm sure a passage on page 1,178 of the negotiations could have been added granting the EU diplomatic status as part of the agreement - and I doubt anyone would have cared about it at all.
Obviously this wasn't that big of a deal to Barnier. Seems to just be a fit by people with nothing better to complain about now, including from that source a "European Commission spokesman" who still seems to think the UK is a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. Either can't be a very senior spokesman or the EU need better spokespeople.
And I can well understand, and sympathise with, the concern expressed in the first two sentences of the last paragraph.
Just the sort of numbers we need to see and reflective of the trial data, which speaks to a fortnight latency before any immunity is achieved.
World GDP, and British GDP, would increase even faster if we had global free movement, a world currency and pan-global regulatory union.
But, we wouldn't want to do that.
Indeed. Martina Navratilova did a superb documentary for the BBC (?) on this, well worth digging out if you can.
She pointed out that she was at the very top in terms of testosterone for a woman, and that a transwoman even after prolonged hormone treatment had higher levels by an order of magnitude.
Not a level playing field, far from it.
The Commonwealth Corps allocated to invading the Tokyo plain felt rather more token.
Not doubting - interested.
An interesting thing that I don't think I've seen anyone mention but from the Pfizer trial data there was no immune response in days 1-7 from initial injection, it takes time between injection happening and the immune response beginning . . . but there was an immediate 90% immune response from days 1-7 after the second injection.
Now logically either the second injection is having an immediate and dramatic response despite not really having had time to work yet . . . or the 90% protection seen in days 22-28 was from the initial injection having had 21 days to work and the second injection wasn't very relevant in those days.
If one dose is 90% and the second dose gives an extra 5% then the UK is most definitely doing the right thing and will save tens of thousands of lives from its rollout. Hundreds of thousands globally if it gets copied.
I do think that you are one of those on here most prone to absolutist thinking, which is always a risk when someone is too focused on facts, equations, physics. Literature can help, and a decent place to start would be Hard Times by Dickens, along with a detailed commentary about the themes Dickens is exploring in that book. It took me a few goes to get it, and I'm really no fan of Dickens' style, but it's worth it.
A pragmatic if messy approach, but not starting from the dogmatic positions of either "side" of the debate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_the_United_Kingdom
In any case, the BBC article is quite clear the reasoning behind it;
"It is understood not to want to set a precedent by treating an international body in the same way as a nation state."
I have no qualms with an athlete like olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner becoming Caitlyn Jenner, if that is how she wants to live her life then that is OK with me.
I do have an issue with a modern Bruce becoming a modern Caitlyn and then competing in women's competitions. It isn't fair.
To give a concrete example in my area of interest: the EU is phasing out the practice of dosing all animals in a herd with antibiotics in case overcrowding might cause an infection to rip through the herd (because mass use of antibiotics leaks through to humans and increases the risk of antibiotic resistance). Britain is umming and ahing about dfoing the same and probably won't. Will that divergence cause harm to the EU? Hard to prove until there's actually example of antibiotic resistance spreading as a result. But it's understandable that they are worried about it.
select 2nd dose daily.
I presume that what is happening is that, as before, they are giving spare vaccinations to NHS staff. If they have had their first jab more than 21 days ago, then they get their second.
it's not entirely to my taste, either, but I am something of a convert to the poetic rhythms of rap. In style, it owes something to Hamilton (which it directly references a couple of times).
A pretty impressive effort from a 22 year old. Who apparently has presidential ambitions of her own.
https://twitter.com/Aiannucci/status/1352217014392254465
Address it on a sport by sport, case by case basis. Middle distance athletics was clearly dominated by trans athletes so the rules were changed. They continue to do scientific research to see if the rules should be strengthened or relaxed, not from an ideological basis but a scientific one. Well done them.
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1352221208700452864
It's probably more accurate to say I have a utilitarian approach to reading for pleasure. If I'm going to invest the time in doing it, I want to get something (broader knowledge) out of it.
You really are a prat.
As soon as he doesn't appear in public for 2 days, you post tweets saying lazy Boris not on the job.
It seems some people want a Ptolemaic geocentric model of the universe but with the EU at the centre of it rather than the earth. To them everything orbits the EU and anything else is immaterial.
https://twitter.com/paulbsinclair/status/1276820688410750976?s=21
I support the right of anyone to take part in any sport they wish. However, if you want to be involved in competition then I'm afraid it should be done on a combination of birth gender and strictly defined biological characteristics. If you aren't born female and your biological characteristics are not within the defined boundaries for being a woman then you compete against men.
My father was in the RN - for a while on a carrier, with Corsairs like in the film landing on the roof. He was very relieved not to have to serve in the invasion of Japan and would never accept any criticism of the decision to drop the nukes. Oddly enough he ended up visiting Hiroshima on a port visit in another ship some years later.
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/fire-at-world-s-biggest-vaccine-maker-in-india-1.1151182
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
"Figure 3 shows cases of Covid-19 or severe Covid-19 with onset at any time after the first dose (mITT population) (additional data on severe Covid-19 are available in Table S5). Between the first dose and the second dose, 39 cases in the BNT162b2 group and 82 cases in the placebo group were observed, resulting in a vaccine efficacy of 52% (95% CI, 29.5 to 68.4) during this interval and indicating early protection by the vaccine, starting as soon as 12 days after the first dose."
Figure 3 referred to is
USA not overly happy at the old Empire reasserting itself, which was one aim - that did not stand contact with reality for too many years.
I think maybe if you haven't been exposed to poetry when young it is hard to relate to and poems are thought of as difficult. But there are some that have provided real comfort to me at times. Others express my thoughts better than I can myself.
If I had one piece of advice for parents of young children it is to read poems to them or get those tapes of people reading them for them to hear at night. It does wonders for their language and memory skills. English is such a beautiful language. It is lovely when it is well spoken (I don't mean accents which are irrelevant). To me, it is like having a nail scratching a blackboard when I hear people making speeches or public statements with a tin ear for the sense or rhythm of their words.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=xJitwGYWv5c
He didn't get any thanks at the time, portrayed by the Republicans as a weak president who 'lost' China, but he was a remarkable leader.
https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1352225383895232514?s=20