Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

With the US Senate about to start the Trump impeachment process the latest tally has the ex-Presiden

13567

Comments

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,617
    edited February 2021

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Is Brexit not, in fact, "done" then?
    Worse than that- this is Brexit.

    Every ongoing decision that needs to be sorted will be in the full glare of publicity, both sides will need to take public stances.
    If you voted Leave so as to not have to think about EU Commissioners any more, I've got bad news for you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,220
    Nigelb said:

    Cost benefit analysis of rapid antigen tests under a variety of assumptions.

    Clinical and Economic Impact of Widespread Rapid Testing to Decrease SARS-CoV-2 Transmission
    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.06.21251270v1
    ...The value of frequent, rapid testing to reduce community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is poorly understood. Objective: To define performance standards and predict the clinical, epidemiological, and economic outcomes of nationwide, home-based, antigen testing. Design: A simple compartmental epidemic model estimated viral transmission, clinical history, and resource use, with and without testing. Data Sources: Parameter values and ranges informed by Centers for Disease Control guidance and published literature. Target Population: United States population. Time Horizon: 60 days. Perspective: Societal. Costs include: testing, inpatient care, and lost workdays. Intervention: Home-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing. Outcome Measures: Cumulative infections and deaths, numbers isolated and/or hospitalized, and total costs. Results of Base-Case Analysis: Without a testing intervention, the model anticipates 15 million infections, 125,000 deaths, and $10.4 billion in costs ($6.5 billion inpatient; $3.9 billion lost productivity) over a 60-day horizon. Weekly availability of testing may avert 4 million infections and 19,000 deaths, raising costs by $21.5 billion. Lower inpatient outlays ($5.9 billion) would partially offset additional testing expenditures ($12.0 billion) and workdays lost ($13.9 billion), yielding incremental costs per infection (death) averted of $5,400 ($1,100,000). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: Outcome estimates vary widely under different behavioral assumptions and testing frequencies. However, key findings persist across all scenarios: large reductions in infections, mortality, and hospitalizations; and costs per death averted roughly an order of magnitude lower than commonly accepted willingness-to-pay values per statistical life saved ($5-17 million). Limitations: Analysis restricted to at-home testing and limited by uncertainties about test performance. Conclusion: High-frequency home testing for SARS-CoV-2 using an inexpensive, imperfect test could contribute to pandemic control at justifiable cost and warrants consideration as part of a national containment strategy...

    Note the pessimistic assumptions:
    ...To account for concerns about individual willingness to adhere to testing and isolation protocols, we adopted a highly pessimistic view of the behavioral response to the testing intervention. In the base case, we assumed that: a) only 50% of individuals would elect to make use of the test kits provided to them; b) only 50% of individuals receiving a positive test finding would respond by isolating themselves as instructed; and c) even among those who did initially isolate, 20% each day would abandon isolation and return to the “active” population against recommended guidance. We further assumed that only 50% of persons exhibiting moderate symptoms of COVID-19 would elect to self-isolate, in the absence of positive test finding. Here again, we assumed that even among symptomatic individuals who did initially elect to isolate, 20% would abandon isolation each day...
  • Mr. Eagles, you are a silly sausage.

    I see you're unable to refute the substance of my arguments and resort to insults.

    We all know that means you have no arguments and I am right, as ever.
  • Scott_xP said:
    I see George Useless has used the wrong date in his letter.
  • Mr. Eagles, either that or you're a naughty little tinker who is saying daft things just for attention. :p
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 9,165
    edited February 2021

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights
    I must say, as someone who is generally agnostic on the monarchy, the idea that the crown estates could be getting 220 million pounds a year from what is effectively an archaic claim to the seabed around British coasts, in the current social and economic circumstances especially , is certainly fairly obscene.
  • Mr. Eagles, either that or you're a naughty little tinker who is saying daft things just for attention. :p

    Again no substantive points from you.

    My argument is correct, otherwise you wouldn't have to resort to insults.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Scott_xP said:
    I see George Useless has used the wrong date in his letter.
    Never mind that, "Thank you for sighting."
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,036

    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    Every pensioner in Bradford who misguidedly refuses the jab puts me one step closer to the front of the queue. So be it.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I see George Useless has used the wrong date in his letter.
    Never mind that, "Thank you for sighting."
    I read that as the EU gave sight of an inter EU letter to UK officials.

    But given past form, they meant citing.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,314

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    Yes I do - see here: https://twitter.com/itvborder/status/1355126017996828679?s=21

    And here - https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/19042573.inexcusable---tim-farron-criticises-cut-vaccine-supplies-north-west/

    Vaccines to Cumbria have been cut. This has meant that the local GP has announced that it cannot continue with vaccinations which, since it has completed those in groups 1-4, means those in groups 5 + 6.

    Meanwhile I know 2 people in London in group 6 who have got vaccines.

    Why has the North West's vaccine allocation been cut?

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,314

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
    It is the whole of the North West's allocation which has been cut not just my local area.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,357
    edited February 2021
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    Yes I do - see here: https://twitter.com/itvborder/status/1355126017996828679?s=21

    And here - https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/19042573.inexcusable---tim-farron-criticises-cut-vaccine-supplies-north-west/

    Vaccines to Cumbria have been cut. This has meant that the local GP has announced that it cannot continue with vaccinations which, since it has completed those in groups 1-4, means those in groups 5 + 6.

    Meanwhile I know 2 people in London in group 6 who have got vaccines.

    Why has the North West's vaccine allocation been cut?

    The reason that London has proceeded to further groups is because of levels of refusals of vaccination.

    Overall, there has been less vaccination in London per head of 16+ population than anywhere else in England -

    First vaccinations as % of 16+ population

    East Of England 24.31%
    London 16.83%
    Midlands 23.44%
    North East And Yorkshire 23.38%
    North West 25.09%
    South East 23.61%
    South West 26.17%
  • On topic, the practical problem for the GOP is:

    - They'd really like Trump to be banned from running again
    - For any individual to vote for this would get them in trouble with their base, and maybe lose them their job

    This is particularly acute for people like Ted Cruz, who don't want to have to run against Trump but also really, really don't want to upset his base.

    Isn't the solution for people who aren't already on the record as anti-Trumpers to say it's unconstitutional and boycott the whole thing?

    Silly question maybe.
    Cannot the Senate hold a secret ballot?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117
    The fact the Democrats now control the Senate means a vote to convict is very likely.

    However the fact any GOP Senator who votes to convict would face a primary challenge from a Trump loyalist makes it equally likely the vote will fall short of the 2/3 majority required.

    That would still mean Trump is only the second US President after Andrew Johnson to have had a vote to convict him on an impeachment vote, though again in Johnson's case it fell short of the 2/3 majority needed
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    Yes I do - see here: https://twitter.com/itvborder/status/1355126017996828679?s=21

    And here - https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/19042573.inexcusable---tim-farron-criticises-cut-vaccine-supplies-north-west/

    Vaccines to Cumbria have been cut. This has meant that the local GP has announced that it cannot continue with vaccinations which, since it has completed those in groups 1-4, means those in groups 5 + 6.

    Meanwhile I know 2 people in London in group 6 who have got vaccines.

    Why has the North West's vaccine allocation been cut?

    But how do you know that's not supply related, Pfizer have already said February shipments will be significantly lower and we know all of the issues with AZ.

    You're looking at one part of a picture and then filling in the rest for yourself based on no knowledge of what's going on.

    I get that you're anxious and want to be vaccinated ASAP. Let's just let them get on with it. Ultimately we're all in lockdown so whether you get it tomorrow or in 10 days it's not really going to be a huge difference, is it?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    On topic, the practical problem for the GOP is:

    - They'd really like Trump to be banned from running again
    - For any individual to vote for this would get them in trouble with their base, and maybe lose them their job

    This is particularly acute for people like Ted Cruz, who don't want to have to run against Trump but also really, really don't want to upset his base.

    Isn't the solution for people who aren't already on the record as anti-Trumpers to say it's unconstitutional and boycott the whole thing?

    Silly question maybe.
    Cannot the Senate hold a secret ballot?
    In that case the Trumpists would try to primary EVERY Republican senator.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Is your name a clue?

    They contribute square root of f all.
    As a republican, I don't think that's an entirely fair comment. I'm sure people would still come to look at such places as Windsor Castle if HMQ were not there. Just perhaps, not as many.
    After all, people still visit Versailles!
  • eekeek Posts: 28,398
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    Yes I do - see here: https://twitter.com/itvborder/status/1355126017996828679?s=21

    And here - https://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/19042573.inexcusable---tim-farron-criticises-cut-vaccine-supplies-north-west/

    Vaccines to Cumbria have been cut. This has meant that the local GP has announced that it cannot continue with vaccinations which, since it has completed those in groups 1-4, means those in groups 5 + 6.

    Meanwhile I know 2 people in London in group 6 who have got vaccines.

    Why has the North West's vaccine allocation been cut?

    Has it relative to elsewhere - the North East also has the same problem.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117
    edited February 2021

    So if people are happy with the principle of a hereditary head of state that means they'd be fine with the principle of a the principle of a hereditary Prime Minister?

    Happened before with the Pitts for example, US Presidents of course from the Adams to the Kennedys to the Bushes to the Clintons have long done dynasties
  • Sky reporting TUI have received 2.8 million holiday bookings for this summer

    Some think it is all over then
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    So did Victoria Beckham and Tindall is not really royal, just an ex rugby player who married Princess Anne's daughter
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,357
    Andy_JS said:

    Youd expect London to have done a smaller percentage of vaccinations for 4 reasons: fewer old people, fewer people with conditions like diabetes/obesity, higher percentage of BAMEs whom we know are more sceptical of taking the vaccine, less settled population than places like the north-east of England which makes organising something like a mass vaccination programme more difficult. [BAMEs are more likely to have diabetes but that factor is outweighed by the much younger population in the capital].

    Region of Residence ICS/STP of Residence
    Percent of all 70-74 population* Percent of all 75-79 population* Percent of all 80+ population*
    London East London Health and Care Partnership 61.1% 72.3% 69.6%
    London North London Partners in Health and Care 62.9% 76.0% 73.3%
    London North West London Health and Care Partnership 57.1% 74.8% 75.6%
    London Our Healthier South East London 68.9% 79.3% 76.3%
    London South West London Health and Care Partnership 56.5% 78.8% 79.5%

    Says quite a lot.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    We would have to spend it on the President and family not the NHS
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    edited February 2021
    The pound Scots was abolished as long ago as 1707, worth just one-twelfth of the pound sterling, and ceased to be used at all after new paper money was issued in the 1790s.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Scott_xP said:
    I see George Useless has used the wrong date in his letter.
    Never mind that, "Thank you for sighting."
    Gormless mistakes aside what a terrible writer!

    ‘advice we have received but do not share about not being able to transport live bivalve molluscs’

    ‘the collaborative and cooperative spirit in which we wish to work going forward’
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
    It is the whole of the North West's allocation which has been cut not just my local area.

    Please take a look at the actual data and compare how many vaccinations are being done day by day and week by week by each region of the country and each health area.

    The data is available here:

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462
    eek said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    I understand that there is a large issue at play here but trying to get some sort of sympathy from yesterday a lobster supplier and today a British supermarket in Belgium - it's hardly man of the people stuff. In fact over the weekend there was an article on the BBC about how people would struggle to find an au pair.

    If it wasn't all brewed here under license I would suggest something like Belgian beer.

    Can anyone else think of something that will be affected that will actually lead to outrage down the pub!

    Down the pub is difficult as anything that could be a problem there (wine) is probably substitutable in ways no one would notice (there is more than enough mark up to swallow a slight price increase and they will just up the price per glass to reflect it anyway).
    While the saloon bar might be loud with the difficulties of getting an au pair, I don't the public one will be bothered until there are problems over travelling, or the recruitment of overseas footballers, and perhaps cricketers. No more Saffers travelling on Dutch passports.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    Pagan2 said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights
    The key argument for keeping the royal family is look at the horses arses that would try to be elected head of state if we didn't
    I suppose the House of Commons was a big mistake and we should just gave a House of Lords with hereditary peers then?

    Sure, voters might end up making choices we think are crap, but it's not inevitable. Ireland has generally ended up with reasonably inoffensive people for its figurehead of a President.

    Why do you hate British people so much that you won't trust them to choose?
    Ireland has a President most of the world has not heard of who lives in a vast house with 92 rooms anyway

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Áras_an_Uachtaráin
  • glwglw Posts: 9,908
    Nigelb said:

    Interesting - some actual data on track-and-trace

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-55985562

    But none on the key metric of how many asked to self isolate actually did so.
    You have anonymised locationless data where you have no idea if people are following up on the guidance, and with an adoption rate that is far below the level needed for supression. So, does it do anything useful? Well obviously if anyone follows the guidance, that's good, but is it worth the time and money? Probably not, and certainly the small distances used and relatively low adoption offer only a marginal advantage over no automated contact tracing at all. If you aren't going to use proper location data or other data sets at a near universal level, like Israel and South Korea have, you are probably better off with boots on the ground going door to door.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
    Really? I never knew Brown and Blair were related!
  • I'll see your £50,000 to "coach" witnesses and raise you to £76,000....

    https://twitter.com/DSanderson_85/status/1358917129437917184?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 28,398

    On topic, the practical problem for the GOP is:

    - They'd really like Trump to be banned from running again
    - For any individual to vote for this would get them in trouble with their base, and maybe lose them their job

    This is particularly acute for people like Ted Cruz, who don't want to have to run against Trump but also really, really don't want to upset his base.

    Isn't the solution for people who aren't already on the record as anti-Trumpers to say it's unconstitutional and boycott the whole thing?

    I pointed out earlier that that is how Rand Paul is planning to play the impeachment and it would make sense for others to do the same.

    If 25 GOP senators did that Trump would be impeached and so couldn't stand and all 25 could say nothing to do with me - we voted against it on constitution grounds and didn't play any further part...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    eek said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    I understand that there is a large issue at play here but trying to get some sort of sympathy from yesterday a lobster supplier and today a British supermarket in Belgium - it's hardly man of the people stuff. In fact over the weekend there was an article on the BBC about how people would struggle to find an au pair.

    If it wasn't all brewed here under license I would suggest something like Belgian beer.

    Can anyone else think of something that will be affected that will actually lead to outrage down the pub!

    Down the pub is difficult as anything that could be a problem there (wine) is probably substitutable in ways no one would notice (there is more than enough mark up to swallow a slight price increase and they will just up the price per glass to reflect it anyway).
    While the saloon bar might be loud with the difficulties of getting an au pair, I don't the public one will be bothered until there are problems over travelling, or the recruitment of overseas footballers, and perhaps cricketers. No more Saffers travelling on Dutch passports.
    That’s already happened:

    https://wisden.com/stories/county-cricket/kolpak-loophole-to-close-at-end-of-2020-ecb-advise-counties
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,865
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
    Really? I never knew Brown and Blair were related!
    Not related but Brown definitely inherited the job.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    Pagan2 said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights
    The key argument for keeping the royal family is look at the horses arses that would try to be elected head of state if we didn't
    The thing is the Royalists on here tell me that the Queen and monarchy is so popular, they'd easily win elections for Head of State.
    69% of UK voters want to keep the monarchy and the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019 (with Starmer now also supporting a reformed monarchy) that is the end of it

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
  • Pity Khan's "London COVID" page doesn't cover vaccination:

    https://twitter.com/SadiqKhan/status/1359081982572003329?s=20
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
    Really? I never knew Brown and Blair were related!
    Not related but Brown definitely inherited the job.
    Well, mine were all examples of people who were actually related.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights
    Nobody goes to France for royal weddings or to buy souvenirs of the Macrons etc unlike here.

    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,996
    edited February 2021
    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights
    The key argument for keeping the royal family is look at the horses arses that would try to be elected head of state if we didn't
    I suppose the House of Commons was a big mistake and we should just gave a House of Lords with hereditary peers then?

    Sure, voters might end up making choices we think are crap, but it's not inevitable. Ireland has generally ended up with reasonably inoffensive people for its figurehead of a President.

    Why do you hate British people so much that you won't trust them to choose?
    Ireland has a President most of the world has not heard of who lives in a vast house with 92 rooms anyway

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Áras_an_Uachtaráin
    Will his oldest sprog be taking over the family firm when he snuffs it while the rest live off dole from the Irish exchequer?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    HYUFD said:


    We would have to spend it on the President and family not the NHS

    The UK wouldn't have to have a president. Switzerland gets along fine with no royals or president.

    Mort aux rois.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,220

    Mr. Eagles, you are a silly sausage.

    I see you're unable to refute the substance of my arguments and resort to insults.

    We all know that means you have no arguments and I am right, as ever.
    Ad hominems are the wurst.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
    Really? I never knew Brown and Blair were related!
    Are you working from home today?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We would have to spend it on the President and family not the NHS

    The UK wouldn't have to have a president. Switzerland gets along fine with no royals or president.

    Mort aux rois.
    We should resurrect the office of Lord High Steward and have that as head of state.

    I know it’s Gondor mant, but it’s still an awesome title.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
    Really? I never knew Brown and Blair were related!
    Are you working from home today?

    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    I could live with the idea of a hereditary Prime Minister if we elected the cabinet and Head of State and they held all the power.

    Otherwise - nah.

    Although of course we have had, in effect, hereditary PMs - Pitt to Pitt the Younger, the Grenvilles, Salisbury to Balfour, Churchill to Eden.

    Blair to Brown also.
    Really? I never knew Brown and Blair were related!
    Are you working from home today?
    I hope so. Nobody’s told me I’m not, put it that way. Not got any live lessons for another hour.
  • eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Essentially, yes.

    As was widely anticipated (and as happened twice before) there was much stockpiling ahead of Brexit. Volumes were massively down initially as the trade had already been stockpiled in December so wasn't happening in January. That was a transient effect that has already unwound, without revealing any anticipated catastrophe or breakdown of the border.
  • Mr. Doethur, if we're using fictional titles I should like to be Harbinger of the Doomed Rat.
  • Nice little Covid-free existence you’ve got there, shame if anything happened to it while you’re on your holidays.

    https://twitter.com/mrharrycole/status/1359057952485892097?s=21
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,477

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    I know but she lives in a Crown property, which we pay the uptake and security for.

    If she and her husband can live in a property like that they don't need furlough.
    Nope.

    They live in a house on Princess Anne's Estate at Gatcombe, which is owned privately by Princess Anne.

    Z does not even have a Royal Title AIUI.

    Any more for any more?
    It was bought by the Queen and gifted to Princess Anne on the occasion of her first marriage. When she was above paying income tax.

    How much taxes do you think the Queen would owe the country during the years she thought income tax was for the plebs?

    The property was bought via a tax dodge.
    So now it's not about them taking our money, it's about us not taking enough of their money?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Mr. Doethur, if we're using fictional titles I should like to be Harbinger of the Doomed Rat.

    Lord High Steward isn’t a fictional title.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_High_Steward
  • eekeek Posts: 28,398
    edited February 2021

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Essentially, yes.

    As was widely anticipated (and as happened twice before) there was much stockpiling ahead of Brexit. Volumes were massively down initially as the trade had already been stockpiled in December so wasn't happening in January. That was a transient effect that has already unwound, without revealing any anticipated catastrophe or breakdown of the border.
    Any evidence to back any of that up?

    And it's not imports into the UK that is a problem at the moment - we don't seem to be checking paperwork.

    It's exports (and imports into NI) where the problems are occurring.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    Groans gently.

    The issue isn’t so much the summer holidays, it’s the Easter holiday that needs to be moved.

    But that would require some intelligence on the part of divers Education departments, and as we all know they’ve got the same approach to facts and reality as Trumpists who have been lobotomised.
  • MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Is your name a clue?

    They contribute square root of f all.
    As a republican, I don't think that's an entirely fair comment. I'm sure people would still come to look at such places as Windsor Castle if HMQ were not there. Just perhaps, not as many.
    After all, people still visit Versailles!
    "Not as many"? I see your "not as many" and raise you "far more".

    Versailles annual visitors: 7,527,122
    Louvre annual visitors: 9,334,000

    Windsor Castle annual visitors: 1,650,000

    The most visited palaces in the world tend to be in republics not monarchies. Not having the monarch there clogging up the space allows it to be actually used for tourists instead.
  • Mr. Doethur, ah, sorry. I was going by your Gondor comment.
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Essentially, yes.

    As was widely anticipated (and as happened twice before) there was much stockpiling ahead of Brexit. Volumes were massively down initially as the trade had already been stockpiled in December so wasn't happening in January. That was a transient effect that has already unwound, without revealing any anticipated catastrophe or breakdown of the border.
    Any evidence to back any of that up?

    And it's not imports into the UK that is a problem at the moment - we don't seem to be checking paperwork.

    It's exports (and imports into NI) where the problems are occurring.
    Evidence that there was stockpiling pre-Brexit? https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-stockpiling-blamed-as-port-congestion-hurts-45-of-manufacturers-12164017 (and plenty of other stories)
    Or evidence that trade volumes are now back up to 90% again? http://www.doverport.co.uk/about/news/traffic-continues-to-flow-smoothly-through-the-por/13575/
  • These sections of Murrell’s testimony really stood out from the rest. They were unintelligible by accident.

    https://stephendaisley.com/2021/02/09/one-for-sorrow-two-for-joy-three-for-a-straight-answer/
  • eekeek Posts: 28,398

    eek said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Essentially, yes.

    As was widely anticipated (and as happened twice before) there was much stockpiling ahead of Brexit. Volumes were massively down initially as the trade had already been stockpiled in December so wasn't happening in January. That was a transient effect that has already unwound, without revealing any anticipated catastrophe or breakdown of the border.
    Any evidence to back any of that up?

    And it's not imports into the UK that is a problem at the moment - we don't seem to be checking paperwork.

    It's exports (and imports into NI) where the problems are occurring.
    Evidence that there was stockpiling pre-Brexit? https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-stockpiling-blamed-as-port-congestion-hurts-45-of-manufacturers-12164017 (and plenty of other stories)
    Or evidence that trade volumes are now back up to 90% again? http://www.doverport.co.uk/about/news/traffic-continues-to-flow-smoothly-through-the-por/13575/
    But we know most of those lorries are departing the UK empty....

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421

    Mr. Doethur, ah, sorry. I was going by your Gondor comment.

    That was an awesome pun because the office has gone dormant.
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,752

    I'll see your £50,000 to "coach" witnesses and raise you to £76,000....

    https://twitter.com/DSanderson_85/status/1358917129437917184?s=20

    It rumbles on...

    https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/opinion/columnists/derek-tucker/2884666/derek-tucker-crucial-the-word-for-snp-fate-fortnight/

    "There also remains the tantalising suspicion that Mr Salmond has been keeping his powder dry and has more explosive allegations to unleash at the appropriate time."

  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,036
    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
    It is the whole of the North West's allocation which has been cut not just my local area.

    That article, already a fortnight old, was refuted as fake news within 24 hours of it being published two whole weeks ago. Its embarrassing that the website still has it up.

    All areas got a reduction for a week because of a national disruption in supplies. That happened nationally. The North has been progressing with vaccinations much faster than London and has much more people vaccinated, that's the actual real data.

    London has a lot of people refusing vaccinations and the North does not. That is a real, real problem for London. I'm glad up here we're not as bad as London - your looking enviously at them is completely backwards.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Essentially, yes.

    As was widely anticipated (and as happened twice before) there was much stockpiling ahead of Brexit. Volumes were massively down initially as the trade had already been stockpiled in December so wasn't happening in January. That was a transient effect that has already unwound, without revealing any anticipated catastrophe or breakdown of the border.
    Are there not many empty trucks?
  • eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Essentially, yes.

    As was widely anticipated (and as happened twice before) there was much stockpiling ahead of Brexit. Volumes were massively down initially as the trade had already been stockpiled in December so wasn't happening in January. That was a transient effect that has already unwound, without revealing any anticipated catastrophe or breakdown of the border.
    Any evidence to back any of that up?

    And it's not imports into the UK that is a problem at the moment - we don't seem to be checking paperwork.

    It's exports (and imports into NI) where the problems are occurring.
    Evidence that there was stockpiling pre-Brexit? https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-stockpiling-blamed-as-port-congestion-hurts-45-of-manufacturers-12164017 (and plenty of other stories)
    Or evidence that trade volumes are now back up to 90% again? http://www.doverport.co.uk/about/news/traffic-continues-to-flow-smoothly-through-the-por/13575/
    But we know most of those lorries are departing the UK empty....

    Even if true, they're still departing smoothly.

    Its not new that the UK has a major trade deficit with the continent.
  • Spain's numbers may be flattered by last update being Feb 4:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
    Quickly replaced by his brother, who led us through WW2.

    It was of course Chamberlain and Churchill who directed our dealings with the Nazis anyway, at the time Edward V111 was monarch most people supported appeasement
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Is your name a clue?

    They contribute square root of f all.
    As a republican, I don't think that's an entirely fair comment. I'm sure people would still come to look at such places as Windsor Castle if HMQ were not there. Just perhaps, not as many.
    After all, people still visit Versailles!
    "Not as many"? I see your "not as many" and raise you "far more".

    Versailles annual visitors: 7,527,122
    Louvre annual visitors: 9,334,000

    Windsor Castle annual visitors: 1,650,000

    The most visited palaces in the world tend to be in republics not monarchies. Not having the monarch there clogging up the space allows it to be actually used for tourists instead.
    The 2011 royal wedding gave a £2 billion boost to the UK economy, you do not get that in a republic

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117
    edited February 2021
    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We would have to spend it on the President and family not the NHS

    The UK wouldn't have to have a president. Switzerland gets along fine with no royals or president.

    Mort aux rois.
    Switzerland has lower public spending as a percentage of gdp than we do, so thanks for confirming you want to cut NHS spending.

    Switzerland also has a President of the Swiss Confederation, Guy Parmelin, who lives in the Federal Palace
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
    I believe, but am open to correction, that the late Elizabeth Windsor (née Bowes-Lyon) wasn't unsympathetic either.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    ydoethur said:

    Groans gently.

    The issue isn’t so much the summer holidays, it’s the Easter holiday that needs to be moved.

    But that would require some intelligence on the part of divers Education departments, and as we all know they’ve got the same approach to facts and reality as Trumpists who have been lobotomised.
    But surely if we are following the science otherwise people will die, can’t then start using jab as a bargaining chip, to split and rule and get projects through?

    I don’t believe Cole, because I don’t believe the government would diverge from the roll out and use jabs as bargaining chips.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,421
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
    Quickly replaced by his brother, who led us through WW2.

    It was of course Chamberlain and Churchill who directed our dealings with the Nazis anyway, at the time Edward V111 was monarch most people supported appeasement
    Churchill directed our dealings with the Nazis in 1936?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,314

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
    It is the whole of the North West's allocation which has been cut not just my local area.

    Please take a look at the actual data and compare how many vaccinations are being done day by day and week by week by each region of the country and each health area.

    The data is available here:

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
    Please have a look at what the NHS has confirmed - https://cumbriacrack.com/2021/01/27/nhs-confirms-covid-19-vaccination-numbers-to-be-cut-in-north-west/.

    I have no problem with allowing other areas to catch up so that all groups 1-4 get done.

    But I do have a problem if some areas are moving onto people in group 6 when others are getting no vaccines at all and are not told when this will change.

    Hopefully supply issues will ease up. But fairness in allocation between regions is also important.

    This is not just a vaccines issue. There is a perception here of unfair treatment, that problems only get attention when they happen in London and the South East.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    HYUFD said:

    Pagan2 said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights
    The key argument for keeping the royal family is look at the horses arses that would try to be elected head of state if we didn't
    I suppose the House of Commons was a big mistake and we should just gave a House of Lords with hereditary peers then?

    Sure, voters might end up making choices we think are crap, but it's not inevitable. Ireland has generally ended up with reasonably inoffensive people for its figurehead of a President.

    Why do you hate British people so much that you won't trust them to choose?
    Ireland has a President most of the world has not heard of who lives in a vast house with 92 rooms anyway

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Áras_an_Uachtaráin
    Will his oldest sprog be taking over the family firm when he snuffs it while the rest live off dole from the Irish exchequer?
    Most of the royals have jobs now, outside of the inner core of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh, the Cornwalls and Cambridges
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462
    gealbhan said:

    ydoethur said:

    Groans gently.

    The issue isn’t so much the summer holidays, it’s the Easter holiday that needs to be moved.

    But that would require some intelligence on the part of divers Education departments, and as we all know they’ve got the same approach to facts and reality as Trumpists who have been lobotomised.
    But surely if we are following the science otherwise people will die, can’t then start using jab as a bargaining chip, to split and rule and get projects through?

    I don’t believe Cole, because I don’t believe the government would diverge from the roll out and use jabs as bargaining chips.
    Can I disassociate myself from that comment because nothing, however dishonest, that this government would do if it thought it would be to it's advantage would surprise me.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,905

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    I know but she lives in a Crown property, which we pay the uptake and security for.

    If she and her husband can live in a property like that they don't need furlough.
    Nope.

    They live in a house on Princess Anne's Estate at Gatcombe, which is owned privately by Princess Anne.

    Z does not even have a Royal Title AIUI.

    Any more for any more?
    It was bought by the Queen and gifted to Princess Anne on the occasion of her first marriage. When she was above paying income tax.

    How much taxes do you think the Queen would owe the country during the years she thought income tax was for the plebs?
    The property was bought via a tax dodge.
    But you Conservatives believe in tax dodges... What is your problem? You seem to be getting very bitter these days.
  • Exactly. If you could be locked up for being a twat the prisons would fill overnight:

    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1359091567999537153?s=20
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117
    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
    Quickly replaced by his brother, who led us through WW2.

    It was of course Chamberlain and Churchill who directed our dealings with the Nazis anyway, at the time Edward V111 was monarch most people supported appeasement
    Churchill directed our dealings with the Nazis in 1936?
    He was monarch at the very end of Baldwin's reign and as Chamberlain was about to come in ie at the time when most British people supported appeasement.

  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We would have to spend it on the President and family not the NHS

    The UK wouldn't have to have a president. Switzerland gets along fine with no royals or president.

    Mort aux rois.
    Switzerland has lower public spending as a percentage of gdp than we do, so thanks for confirming you want to cut NHS spending.

    Switzerland also has a President of the Swiss Confederation, Guy Parmelin, who lives in the Federal Palace
    That’s a flight of fancy to draw that conclusion.

    I think the argument is, a little bit more power both to No. 10 and the speakers chair is all it’s needs to disestablish monarch complete from politics, no president required, and that old blocker argument, it’s either Queen or president Blair is dead in the water.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117
    edited February 2021
    gealbhan said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    HYUFD said:


    We would have to spend it on the President and family not the NHS

    The UK wouldn't have to have a president. Switzerland gets along fine with no royals or president.

    Mort aux rois.
    Switzerland has lower public spending as a percentage of gdp than we do, so thanks for confirming you want to cut NHS spending.

    Switzerland also has a President of the Swiss Confederation, Guy Parmelin, who lives in the Federal Palace
    That’s a flight of fancy to draw that conclusion.

    I think the argument is, a little bit more power both to No. 10 and the speakers chair is all it’s needs to disestablish monarch complete from politics, no president required, and that old blocker argument, it’s either Queen or president Blair is dead in the water.
    No it isn't, no country in the world does not have a Head of State in some form to head the armed forces, lead the executive branch, represent the nation at home and abroad etc.
  • HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Is your name a clue?

    They contribute square root of f all.
    As a republican, I don't think that's an entirely fair comment. I'm sure people would still come to look at such places as Windsor Castle if HMQ were not there. Just perhaps, not as many.
    After all, people still visit Versailles!
    "Not as many"? I see your "not as many" and raise you "far more".

    Versailles annual visitors: 7,527,122
    Louvre annual visitors: 9,334,000

    Windsor Castle annual visitors: 1,650,000

    The most visited palaces in the world tend to be in republics not monarchies. Not having the monarch there clogging up the space allows it to be actually used for tourists instead.
    The 2011 royal wedding gave a £2 billion boost to the UK economy, you do not get that in a republic

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost
    Instead you just have to settle for getting billions extra annually rather than once every few decades.

    The French Republic doesn't suffer from a lack of tourism - it is the most popular tourist destination of all.

    Tourists prefer to actually go inside and tour royal palaces not just gawp at them from outside. That's why the French Republic does better from its Palaces than we do for tourism.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Off topic, an interesting piece on BBC Breakfast from a British supermarket in Belgium who haven't been able to get resupply since Brexit.

    Bless - we haven't even got started yet. Our government insisted on full 3rd country status without knowing what that means in practice. As an example, should this store want to buy McVities Chocolate Digestives, a Veterinary certificate is needed.

    These are the standard 3rd country rules that we demanded - seemingly without knowing what they were. We could of course reopen negotiations - so that we are able to send things from one part of the UK to another part of the UK. But to do so would be treason or whatever. So instead we will enjoy "this is what we voted for" and "stop attacking our Brilliant Brexit" etc etc

    What does, what can a vet certify about chocolate biscuits?

    Also, what is this "cricket" about which everyone is going on, interminably?
    The emerging problem, beyond even chocolate biscuits, is something like this, once the EEA/EFTA solution had been ignored or abandoned by Remainers and gradualist Brexiteers:

    Was the truth in the referendum campaign really that we may want to leave the EU but actually we can't. That 3rd country status is impossible because it is so damaging economically, and dangerous to the Irish situation?

    I think that is what Remainers thought, but that to say so admits that we had got so far in to something without real whole hearted consent that it is better to be in denial.

    If that's right then the real choice in the Referendum was between the potential disaster we have now (if the critics are correct) or an eternal democratic deficit with so solution and no getting off.

    It is an epic fail; but the fail was between 1975 and 2016.

    It wasn't even that - I lot of leave voters on here voted live because they thought the Government wouldn't be stupid enough to leave the EEA as they would grasp how important avoiding 3rd country was to our economy.

    Were it not for Covid we would see the full scale of the mess we are now in, Boris however has the advantage that Covid is hiding the full scale of the issue.
    Considering Boris and Gove explicitly said "we will leave the Single Market" why would they possible think that?

    Reality is we aren't in a mess. Apart from possibly Northern Ireland which either needs Gove's letter addressing in full or Article 16 invoking.

    As I predicted in my New Years Eve predictions, there are some issues much magnified on Twitter or by those who don't want to let the matter rest, but not really concerning to the rest of the country.

    The Port of Dover this week reported that their traffic is back up to 90% of normal volumes already for this time of year - despite Brexit and despite Covid.

    Your and RP's and Nabavi's and Scott's and others projections of doom just aren't happening.
    I’m a bit puzzled.
    I was recently told that it was unfair to say that UK Jan ‘21 exports were 68% down on Jan ‘20 without factoring in Covid. Now I’m being told that Dover traffic is back up to 90% of what it was at the same time last year. Why is 90% of 2020 traffic carrying only 32% of 2020 exports? Have exporters recovered most of that lost 68% in 8 days?
    Need to be clear what you are measuring. Imports are relatively unaffected at the moment. There are no UK border controls on EU goods until April and we can see that there aren't substantial gaps on supermarket shelves. Dover Port measures truck movements in and at out at 90% because by definition any truck that comes in must go out again, even if it's empty. The evidence is that hauliers are refusing backloads of UK exports because they don't want to be stuck on the UK or French border ports.

    Exports are a different kettle of fish and appear to be very substantially affected by Brexit. The 68% drop in loads exported comes from a survey of members of the Road Haulage Association. Reasons for thinking this might be a one-off figure: stockpiling in December; increasing loads during January; RHA deliveries only part of total goods exports and not necessarily representative of it.

    There is no doubt Brexit will permanently clobber UK exports. People will lose jobs and businesses as a result of it. It won't be a permanent drop of 68% however.

    Covid has little to do with this unless we can date the onset of the epidemic precisely to 1 January 2021, when exports collapsed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117
    ClippP said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    I know but she lives in a Crown property, which we pay the uptake and security for.

    If she and her husband can live in a property like that they don't need furlough.
    Nope.

    They live in a house on Princess Anne's Estate at Gatcombe, which is owned privately by Princess Anne.

    Z does not even have a Royal Title AIUI.

    Any more for any more?
    It was bought by the Queen and gifted to Princess Anne on the occasion of her first marriage. When she was above paying income tax.

    How much taxes do you think the Queen would owe the country during the years she thought income tax was for the plebs?
    The property was bought via a tax dodge.
    But you Conservatives believe in tax dodges... What is your problem? You seem to be getting very bitter these days.
    TSE votes LD and is a republican, he is not a Conservative and nor is he a Tory
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,462
    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
    Quickly replaced by his brother, who led us through WW2.

    It was of course Chamberlain and Churchill who directed our dealings with the Nazis anyway, at the time Edward V111 was monarch most people supported appeasement
    Churchill directed our dealings with the Nazis in 1936?
    He was monarch at the very end of Baldwin's reign and as Chamberlain was about to come in ie at the time when most British people supported appeasement.

    Arguing with a history teacher about history is, I suggest, a trifle unwise. Particularly when one appears to convoluted the facts.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    Exactly. If you could be locked up for being a twat the prisons would fill overnight:

    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1359091567999537153?s=20

    There had to be limits to free speech though, otherwise there’s nothing free about a society descending into anarchy.
    The weakness of Rupert, and everyone agreeing, is saying prison. The most extreme example of punishment for this charge. That’s not this case is it?

    Nice shirt though Rupert.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
    It is the whole of the North West's allocation which has been cut not just my local area.

    Please take a look at the actual data and compare how many vaccinations are being done day by day and week by week by each region of the country and each health area.

    The data is available here:

    https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
    Please have a look at what the NHS has confirmed - https://cumbriacrack.com/2021/01/27/nhs-confirms-covid-19-vaccination-numbers-to-be-cut-in-north-west/.

    I have no problem with allowing other areas to catch up so that all groups 1-4 get done.

    But I do have a problem if some areas are moving onto people in group 6 when others are getting no vaccines at all and are not told when this will change.

    Hopefully supply issues will ease up. But fairness in allocation between regions is also important.

    This is not just a vaccines issue. There is a perception here of unfair treatment, that problems only get attention when they happen in London and the South East.
    Again the same fortnight old fake news.

    The NHS responded very clearly that numbers everywhere were temporarily cut due to the disruption in supplies from Pfizer etc - it was not the case that Cumbria or the Northwest was targetted.

    In case you've missed it too there's been plenty more news and data in the past fortnight. Perhaps look at the news and data from February rather than scare mongering fake news articles from January?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,117

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Is your name a clue?

    They contribute square root of f all.
    As a republican, I don't think that's an entirely fair comment. I'm sure people would still come to look at such places as Windsor Castle if HMQ were not there. Just perhaps, not as many.
    After all, people still visit Versailles!
    "Not as many"? I see your "not as many" and raise you "far more".

    Versailles annual visitors: 7,527,122
    Louvre annual visitors: 9,334,000

    Windsor Castle annual visitors: 1,650,000

    The most visited palaces in the world tend to be in republics not monarchies. Not having the monarch there clogging up the space allows it to be actually used for tourists instead.
    The 2011 royal wedding gave a £2 billion boost to the UK economy, you do not get that in a republic

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost
    Instead you just have to settle for getting billions extra annually rather than once every few decades.

    The French Republic doesn't suffer from a lack of tourism - it is the most popular tourist destination of all.

    Tourists prefer to actually go inside and tour royal palaces not just gawp at them from outside. That's why the French Republic does better from its Palaces than we do for tourism.
    People go to France because it has better weather and warmer beaches than we do, especially in the South, because it has more countryside than we do as it is a bigger nation, because it has more mountains for skiing than we do as well as its historic chateaux etc, not all of those connected with royalty anyway and some still lived in by those connected to old aristocratic families.

    The royal family is one of our main draws, if we lose it and we lose royal weddings, coronations etc we lose one of our key sources of tourism revenue, plus all those selling royal souvenirs in London lose their jobs, how many in Paris sell souvenirs of the Macrons?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    HYUFD said:

    ClippP said:

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    I know but she lives in a Crown property, which we pay the uptake and security for.

    If she and her husband can live in a property like that they don't need furlough.
    Nope.

    They live in a house on Princess Anne's Estate at Gatcombe, which is owned privately by Princess Anne.

    Z does not even have a Royal Title AIUI.

    Any more for any more?
    It was bought by the Queen and gifted to Princess Anne on the occasion of her first marriage. When she was above paying income tax.

    How much taxes do you think the Queen would owe the country during the years she thought income tax was for the plebs?
    The property was bought via a tax dodge.
    But you Conservatives believe in tax dodges... What is your problem? You seem to be getting very bitter these days.
    TSE votes LD and is a republican, he is not a Conservative and nor is he a Tory
    He’s now a mud blood! To use the Potterism to explain your argument.

    TSE is not a true wizard!

    He is a very naughty boy though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,599

    Sky reporting TUI have received 2.8 million holiday bookings for this summer

    Some think it is all over then

    Who on Earth are these people?

    2.8 million walking, talking reasons why mandatory hotel quarantine is needed.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,314

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Cyclefree said:

    Well, still no vaccines here, despite more first hand reports of people in Group 6 being vaccinated in London.

    Grrrr.... 🤬

    Meanwhile a Covid outbreak at BaE and since lots of employees live in the local village I remain confined to my living-room. Thrillingly, I may spend time in the bedroom later.

    Laters

    I'm hearing of people in their early 60s get the vaccine in other parts of county, whilst in some places including my own they are still very slowly working through the 70+ years olds. I reckon we are at least two weeks behind many other places.
    Some places have more oldies than others.

    Some places have more anti-vaxxers than others.
    And some places (with a greater proportion of oldies, as you call them, than others) have had their allocation of vaccines cut by a third so that other places can get ahead - as is happening in London - not simply catch up.

    Do you have any evidence for that claim ?

    Lets look at some actual data.

    Yesterday's update showed that 38,523 new vaccinations in North East and Yorkshire (which includes most of Cumbria) and 21,057 in London.
    And if we look in more detail at each health area we see that in Cumbria and North East the most recent data gives this as the proportion of each age group vaccinated:

    80+ 91.8%
    75-79 85.5%
    70-74 22.8%

    So if Cyclefree's area has fully vaccinated all the 70+ age group then perhaps its not receiving any more vaccine because it is instead being sent to Carlisle or Workington so that they can complete their 70+ vaccinations.
    It is the whole of the North West's allocation which has been cut not just my local area.

    That article, already a fortnight old, was refuted as fake news within 24 hours of it being published two whole weeks ago. Its embarrassing that the website still has it up.

    All areas got a reduction for a week because of a national disruption in supplies. That happened nationally. The North has been progressing with vaccinations much faster than London and has much more people vaccinated, that's the actual real data.

    London has a lot of people refusing vaccinations and the North does not. That is a real, real problem for London. I'm glad up here we're not as bad as London - your looking enviously at them is completely backwards.
    The current programme is to get everyone in groups 1-4 vaccinated by next week. It looks as if we're going to do it. Great. Then we move onto groups 5 & 6.

    All I'm asking is why is it that some people in group 6 are already being vaccinated whereas in others vaccination centres are being denied vaccines which can be used for the same group of people, indeed for groups at higher risk than those in group 6.

    The local surgery/hospital has been told by the NHS that it is going to have to wait for vaccines. This is not fake news.

    And yes I am bloody anxious about it - because there has been a resurgence of the pox in the area, which has so far largely kept clear of it. The longer I have to wait for the first vaccine, the longer I have to wait for the second and immunity and some hope of a vaguely normal life. It's been over a year now and I am absolutely fucking depressed about it all and terrified of catching this because I know what it is like to have to gasp for fucking breath to stay alive and to have oxygen pumped into you and cough up blood and get blood clots and if I get this my chances of survival are frankly not good so quoting statistics back at me really doesn't help.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    MattW said:

    Obviously not made of the right stuff, a proper royal would have made massive efforts to stop the public knowing how much they got from the national tit. And that tweed...

    https://twitter.com/mattsunroyal/status/1358906277506744321?s=21

    Take back control from our unelected rulers.

    We spend x million on these gits, let us spend it on the NHS instead.
    Hate to break it you.

    Zara T does not get anything from the Civil List.

    If you find anything she does get from the public do let us know, but never let reality get in the way of a good story etc...
    Many seem to forget how much the Royal family contribute via tourism.
    Really? I suppose France gets no tourism to the relics of its monarchy because it doesn't have a living family occupying the throne?

    Meanwhile we are shovelling money into the hands of this family at an obscene and absurd rate. When will we bring an end to this madness?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights


    Nor does the monarchy risk a President Le Pen, which remains an outside chance for France in 2022 on current polls
    Erm, Edward VIII? An actual Nazi sympathiser.
    Quickly replaced by his brother, who led us through WW2.

    It was of course Chamberlain and Churchill who directed our dealings with the Nazis anyway, at the time Edward V111 was monarch most people supported appeasement
    Churchill directed our dealings with the Nazis in 1936?
    He was monarch at the very end of Baldwin's reign and as Chamberlain was about to come in ie at the time when most British people supported appeasement.

    Arguing with a history teacher about history is, I suggest, a trifle unwise. Particularly when one appears to convoluted the facts.
    A history teacher can’t know everything! Do you claim to know everything Doctor?

    Historians argue amongst themselves don’t they?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    Sandpit said:

    Sky reporting TUI have received 2.8 million holiday bookings for this summer

    Some think it is all over then

    Who on Earth are these people?

    2.8 million walking, talking reasons why mandatory hotel quarantine is needed.
    Downing Street briefing yesterday wasn’t a clear don’t do it.
This discussion has been closed.