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...
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.
Ummm...no he wasn’t. He was, in 1936, a former Chancellor and First Lord of the Admiralty whom everyone thought of as a somewhat unhinged racist.
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.
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, how do you know that the same supply issues aren't causing shortages in the whole country. There's plenty of evidence that it is the case. The figures for London have been consistently lower than the rest of the country as a proportion of the country and that's because of a lesser allocation as well as poor uptake.
You keep talking about fairness, frankly it's a bit nauseating. You're talking about waiting a few extra days, maybe a week for your first dose. Under 50s will be waiting months and people in the developing world could be waiting for years.
As I said, I understand that you're anxious to be immunised, everyone is. Less of the "me, me, me" and more consideration for people who aren't going to get them months or years when you consider you'll be waiting for maybe an extra week or two.
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...
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".
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
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html which includes facts such as: "There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country." So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
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...
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?
Certainly not. I remain at a loss to explain the actions of the DfE, for example.
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...
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.
It looks like they are going through the motions on the Trump impeachment, and maybe more importantly on elected officials that took part in the attempted coup and are still in office.
This article claims impeachment has a useful effect even if it doesn't end in a conviction. I am not completely convinced, but interesting argument nevertheless.
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.
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, how do you know that the same supply issues aren't causing shortages in the whole country. There's plenty of evidence that it is the case.
Indeed - its in the article:
The main reason behind the drop in numbers was that supply from Pfizer and AstraZeneca had been constrained, which limited the number of jabs that could be offered.
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...
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.
Ummm...no he wasn’t. He was, in 1936, a former Chancellor and First Lord of the Admiralty whom everyone thought of as a somewhat unhinged racist.
Later on, he became PM.
I think you misread my comment...
So you do not dispute most people supported appeasement in 1936 as did Edward VIIII thanks for confirming, Churchill did indeed not become PM until 1940
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...
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?
Certainly not. I remain at a loss to explain the actions of the DfE, for example.
Easy enough, I would have thought. We have a gang of incompetents in charge who want to take the country back to the 19th C. The civil servants just follow orders.
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
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...
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".
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
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html which includes facts such as: "There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country." So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
Utter rubbish, the royal wedding was a huge boost to brand UK watched by 180 million worldwide, creating a huge boost to shops too who provided catering for those watching eg Marks and Spencers sold an extra 2 million sausage rolls, Tesco sold 120 miles of bunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13248642.
As a leftwing republican you obviously have an ideological anti monarchy agenda anathema to a Tory such as myself, however I note even Starmer has now accepted the monarchy is here to stay even if he wants it in a more reformed form after the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn at the 2019 general election.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
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...
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.
Ummm...no he wasn’t. He was, in 1936, a former Chancellor and First Lord of the Admiralty whom everyone thought of as a somewhat unhinged racist.
Later on, he became PM.
I think you misread my comment...
So you do not dispute most people supported appeasement in 1936 as did Edward VIIII thanks for confirming, Churchill did indeed not become PM until 1940
Err..no, I’m saying that Churchill didn’t direct British foreign policy in the reign of Edward VIII. As you yourself note, if he had, it would have been different.
Moreover, I am suggesting that you misread my comment, because you said in your reply that Churchill was King during the latter stages of Baldwin’s tenure. I can only conclude you didn’t read what I wrote correctly.
I am also rapidly coming to the conclusion that reading comprehension was not required at Warwick as part of their History course...or indeed for DILS at Aber (although knowing a lot about that course that does surprise me).
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...
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".
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
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?
If we can adapt to Brexit and the economic impact of that, we can adapt to being a republic and the somewhat smaller economic impact of that. Take back control!
(Tongue partly in cheek. I'm a republican on principle, but I'm not particularly bothered about the Royal Family. They're a long way down my to-do list when I'm finally put in my rightful place as supreme ruler.)
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...
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.
Small point but on the issue of supporting historic bad people dates matter. Loads of people had some sympathies with the Nazi regime in the 1930s. Just as loads of people (and many intellectuals) supported Stalin and friends in that period.
In our own day, to sympathise with Trump and believe he was the better candidate in 2015/2016, assuming he would campaign in (bad) poetry and govern in (less bad) prose when up against an awful, self absorbed, entitled, deplorable candidate like Hilary Clinton is at least understandable. Less so for anyone thinking so in 2020/21.
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...
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".
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
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html which includes facts such as: "There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country." So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
Utter rubbish, the royal wedding was a huge boost to brand UK watched by 180 million worldwide, creating a huge boost to shops too who provided catering for those watching eg Marks and Spencers sold an extra 2 million sausage rolls, Tesco sold 120 miles of bunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13248642.
As a leftwing republican you obviously have an ideological anti monarchy agenda anathema to a Tory such as myself, however I note even Starmer has now accepted the monarchy is here to stay even if he wants it in a more reformed form after the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn at the 2019 general election.
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...
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?
Certainly not. I remain at a loss to explain the actions of the DfE, for example.
Easy enough, I would have thought. We have a gang of incompetents in charge who want to take the country back to the 19th C. The civil servants just follow orders.
Even that doesn’t quite explain it, which is worrying. Remember, schools were finally closed over the objections of civil servants.
Anyway, I have to put a suit on, fire up the webcam and teach. See you later.
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...
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?
Certainly not. I remain at a loss to explain the actions of the DfE, for example.
That's easy - the DfE pick the result that will be most entertaining.
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...
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.
Skating a bit of a rhetorical line there as to whether lifetime gifts are a designed part of the system or a "tax dodge".
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...
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".
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
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?
On that basis, the royals have been doing us a great favour with their failed marriages, it's just a shame that more don't take Charles's lead and re-marry to give us more royal weddings.
The Queen should also be criticised for the lack of corononations over the last 69 years. Timely abdication could give us a much needed post-Covid/post-Brexit tourism boost.
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.
Everywhere is waiting for vaccines from time to time, supply is the main issue. The fake news element is that the North is being deprioritised for the South or London, that's totally fake. The North is actually doing much better than London, I don't wish harm upon London but I hope the North continues to do well.
The reason for some in groups 5&6 being done already - and the same is happening nationwide - is due to the realities of distribution. Every area gets limited amounts of vaccines and the most important element is using them all. If not enough people from group 4 are available to be vaccinated then don't waste any vaccines, use them.
EG a box of Pfizer vaccines has 975 doses in it, which must all be used in a 3 day window. If a GP surgery gets a box of doses and is able to only get 900 group 4 patients in for that 3 day window then that leaves them 75 doses to offer to those not yet prioritised.
This has happened since the very beginning. Although technically the oldest priority group was 80+ I know from my grandparents that the local hospital in the beginning was calling the 90+ first then moving down the ages. My grandad (91) was called very early on, my nanna (80s) did not get the call but as she is in her 80s was able to be booked in at the same time as my grandad so that they could both make the journey once together.
PS I appreciate statistics don't help but take some encouragement from the statistics rather than fear from articles spreading panic. The North is doing very well at getting vaccines out thankfully, fingers crossed you get yours sooner than later.
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.
Everywhere is waiting for vaccines from time to time, supply is the main issue. The fake news element is that the North is being deprioritised for the South or London, that's totally fake. The North is actually doing much better than London, I don't wish harm upon London but I hope the North continues to do well.
The reason for some in groups 5&6 being done already - and the same is happening nationwide - is due to the realities of distribution. Every area gets limited amounts of vaccines and the most important element is using them all. If not enough people from group 4 are available to be vaccinated then don't waste any vaccines, use them.
EG a box of Pfizer vaccines has 975 doses in it, which must all be used in a 3 day window. If a GP surgery gets a box of doses and is able to only get 900 group 4 patients in for that 3 day window then that leaves them 75 doses to offer to those not yet prioritised.
This has happened since the very beginning. Although technically the oldest priority group was 80+ I know from my grandparents that the local hospital in the beginning was calling the 90+ first then moving down the ages. My grandad (91) was called very early on, my nanna (80s) did not get the call but as she is in her 80s was able to be booked in at the same time as my grandad so that they could both make the journey once together.
PS I appreciate statistics don't help but take some encouragement from the statistics rather than fear from articles spreading panic. The North is doing very well at getting vaccines out thankfully, fingers crossed you get yours sooner than later.
You speak as though from a position of knowledge and authority on this subject. How is that please?
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
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.
Everywhere is waiting for vaccines from time to time, supply is the main issue. The fake news element is that the North is being deprioritised for the South or London, that's totally fake. The North is actually doing much better than London, I don't wish harm upon London but I hope the North continues to do well.
The reason for some in groups 5&6 being done already - and the same is happening nationwide - is due to the realities of distribution. Every area gets limited amounts of vaccines and the most important element is using them all. If not enough people from group 4 are available to be vaccinated then don't waste any vaccines, use them.
EG a box of Pfizer vaccines has 975 doses in it, which must all be used in a 3 day window. If a GP surgery gets a box of doses and is able to only get 900 group 4 patients in for that 3 day window then that leaves them 75 doses to offer to those not yet prioritised.
This has happened since the very beginning. Although technically the oldest priority group was 80+ I know from my grandparents that the local hospital in the beginning was calling the 90+ first then moving down the ages. My grandad (91) was called very early on, my nanna (80s) did not get the call but as she is in her 80s was able to be booked in at the same time as my grandad so that they could both make the journey once together.
PS I appreciate statistics don't help but take some encouragement from the statistics rather than fear from articles spreading panic. The North is doing very well at getting vaccines out thankfully, fingers crossed you get yours sooner than later.
You speak as though from a position of knowledge and authority on this subject. How is that please?
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
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...
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".
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
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html which includes facts such as: "There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country." So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
Utter rubbish, the royal wedding was a huge boost to brand UK watched by 180 million worldwide, creating a huge boost to shops too who provided catering for those watching eg Marks and Spencers sold an extra 2 million sausage rolls, Tesco sold 120 miles of bunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13248642.
As a leftwing republican you obviously have an ideological anti monarchy agenda anathema to a Tory such as myself, however I note even Starmer has now accepted the monarchy is here to stay even if he wants it in a more reformed form after the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn at the 2019 general election.
The monarchy is here to stay
'an extra 2 million sausage rolls'
Rejoice!
Don't forget the bunting! Anyway it all looks like discretionary spending that wasn't then spent on something else. So no boost whatsoever to the economy, even if you ignore the cost of the extra holiday. I mean if getting people to stay home and watch TV boosts the economy the lockdown should mean an incredible boom!
Does it help brand UK, or harm it? It depends if you think there is more benefit than harm in the rest of the world thinking the UK is hopelessly stuck in the past. Probably does more harm than good to brand UK on balance.
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Also @Cyclefree have you tried the website to book an appointment? Does someone have the link to do so?
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
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...
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
Most people weren't teaching their young nieces how to do a straight-arm salute.
The only reason why Biden shouldn't want it to be thought to matter to him that his predecessor should be banished from future public office is that he (Biden) knows that this won't happen.
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Also @Cyclefree have you tried the website to book an appointment? Does someone have the link to do so?
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
That's only the advice for over 70s. Everyone else is still being asked to wait their turn.
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...
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".
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
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html which includes facts such as: "There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country." So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
Utter rubbish, the royal wedding was a huge boost to brand UK watched by 180 million worldwide, creating a huge boost to shops too who provided catering for those watching eg Marks and Spencers sold an extra 2 million sausage rolls, Tesco sold 120 miles of bunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13248642.
As a leftwing republican you obviously have an ideological anti monarchy agenda anathema to a Tory such as myself, however I note even Starmer has now accepted the monarchy is here to stay even if he wants it in a more reformed form after the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn at the 2019 general election.
The monarchy is here to stay
'an extra 2 million sausage rolls'
Rejoice!
Don't forget the bunting! Anyway it all looks like discretionary spending that wasn't then spent on something else. So no boost whatsoever to the economy, even if you ignore the cost of the extra holiday. I mean if getting people to stay home and watch TV boosts the economy the lockdown should mean an incredible boom!
Does it help brand UK, or harm it? It depends if you think there is more benefit than harm in the rest of the world thinking the UK is hopelessly stuck in the past. Probably does more harm than good to brand UK on balance.
On what basis? Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Jordan and of course Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also constitutional monarchies and very well run and respected nations.
Just you have an ideological, anti monarchy agenda
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
That’s just pouring more beans on the weetabix Nige!
You are opening up the idea both English and US civil wars are linked, added to the idea voting allegiance in both country’s stemmed from their own civil wars.
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.
Everywhere is waiting for vaccines from time to time, supply is the main issue. The fake news element is that the North is being deprioritised for the South or London, that's totally fake. The North is actually doing much better than London, I don't wish harm upon London but I hope the North continues to do well.
The reason for some in groups 5&6 being done already - and the same is happening nationwide - is due to the realities of distribution. Every area gets limited amounts of vaccines and the most important element is using them all. If not enough people from group 4 are available to be vaccinated then don't waste any vaccines, use them.
EG a box of Pfizer vaccines has 975 doses in it, which must all be used in a 3 day window. If a GP surgery gets a box of doses and is able to only get 900 group 4 patients in for that 3 day window then that leaves them 75 doses to offer to those not yet prioritised.
This has happened since the very beginning. Although technically the oldest priority group was 80+ I know from my grandparents that the local hospital in the beginning was calling the 90+ first then moving down the ages. My grandad (91) was called very early on, my nanna (80s) did not get the call but as she is in her 80s was able to be booked in at the same time as my grandad so that they could both make the journey once together.
PS I appreciate statistics don't help but take some encouragement from the statistics rather than fear from articles spreading panic. The North is doing very well at getting vaccines out thankfully, fingers crossed you get yours sooner than later.
You speak as though from a position of knowledge and authority on this subject. How is that please?
Hello stalker.
Having a good day?
I wouldn't flatter yourself. I don't have time let alone the inclination to stalk a 24/7 keyboard warrior. I will ask again though, where do gain your opinion that you have expressed above as though it is a statement of facts? Or are you just spouting uninformed opinion?
Here is a tip Philip (if that is your real name), if you are just a wild venting uninformed thought, try starting your post with "My guess is...", or "my take on this is..." or (for post lockdown) "the bloke down the pub says...".
Just a suggestion. And, yes thank you, I am having a very good day.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
Largely yes.
Though the Democrats pre dated the civil war, the Republicans replaced the Whigs with Lincoln the first elected Republican Party President.
The Tories originally arose as the party of the court, the landed gentry and the most pro monarchy, most pro Church of England party, while the Whigs were the party of the merchant classes and nonconformists
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Also @Cyclefree have you tried the website to book an appointment? Does someone have the link to do so?
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
That's only the advice for over 70s. Everyone else is still being asked to wait their turn.
I've just had a text from my GP asking anyone over 65 (or current healthcare workers) to get in touch for a vaccine: I think they mean group 5.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
I dunno. There are still persistent, faint echoes of cultural differences between Royalist and Puritan towns and cities. Try a night out in Wigan and Bolton, or Newcastle and Sunderland for example.
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...
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".
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
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?
If we can adapt to Brexit and the economic impact of that, we can adapt to being a republic and the somewhat smaller economic impact of that. Take back control!
(Tongue partly in cheek. I'm a republican on principle, but I'm not particularly bothered about the Royal Family. They're a long way down my to-do list when I'm finally put in my rightful place as supreme ruler.)
Brexiteers are more likely to be monarchists.
56% of Monarchists voted Leave in 2016 but 65% of Republicans voted Remain, no surprise as some of the latter would be happy with a President Von Der Leyen
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...
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
Most people weren't teaching their young nieces how to do a straight-arm salute.
I don’t want to throw a curved one into this discussion, but maybe we are judging on knowing the whole picture? The whole successful fascist tide may have been viewed differently prior to the war when decisions were made. We are judging decisions with a knowledge they didn’t have when they made decisions.
Now that Boris has got Brexit done, what would the Daily Express have left to write about if we were a republic?
Although I am a republican, on the basis of everyone progressing in life based on their own ability, not though an accident of birth, I would accept a Norwegian or Dutch style of monarchy, not our family of bloated parasites.
What surprises me is that there were as many as 6% of Tories that voted for The Clown. It would be interesting to see if that survey has been done for other leaders in the past
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...
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".
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
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?
On that basis, the royals have been doing us a great favour with their failed marriages, it's just a shame that more don't take Charles's lead and re-marry to give us more royal weddings.
The Queen should also be criticised for the lack of corononations over the last 69 years. Timely abdication could give us a much needed post-Covid/post-Brexit tourism boost.
I think London - and the UK for that matter - has far more to offer than the bloomin’ royal family
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Also @Cyclefree have you tried the website to book an appointment? Does someone have the link to do so?
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
That's only the advice for over 70s. Everyone else is still being asked to wait their turn.
Indeed, though if Cyclefree is priority group 4 then it is worth a try to see if it works.
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...
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".
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
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html which includes facts such as: "There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country." So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
Utter rubbish, the royal wedding was a huge boost to brand UK watched by 180 million worldwide, creating a huge boost to shops too who provided catering for those watching eg Marks and Spencers sold an extra 2 million sausage rolls, Tesco sold 120 miles of bunting https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13248642.
As a leftwing republican you obviously have an ideological anti monarchy agenda anathema to a Tory such as myself, however I note even Starmer has now accepted the monarchy is here to stay even if he wants it in a more reformed form after the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn at the 2019 general election.
The monarchy is here to stay
'an extra 2 million sausage rolls'
Rejoice!
Don't forget the bunting! Anyway it all looks like discretionary spending that wasn't then spent on something else. So no boost whatsoever to the economy, even if you ignore the cost of the extra holiday. I mean if getting people to stay home and watch TV boosts the economy the lockdown should mean an incredible boom!
Does it help brand UK, or harm it? It depends if you think there is more benefit than harm in the rest of the world thinking the UK is hopelessly stuck in the past. Probably does more harm than good to brand UK on balance.
On what basis? Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Jordan and of course Canada, Australia and New Zealand are also constitutional monarchies and very well run and respected nations.
Just you have an ideological, anti monarchy agenda
Your ridiculous spin that the 2011 wedding boosted the UK economy is so obviously false to any objective observer, so I suggest looking in the mirror in terms of ideological agenda. How does having absurd OTT antiquated costume dramas projected as the image of the UK help brand UK?
Some of the most democratic countries do indeed have constitutional monarchies, and while I am against the monarchy on principle, it is really not a priority to get rid of it, and may well be more trouble that it is worth.
But the ridiculous spin about the immense riches they are showering on the country every time one of them gets married is just laughable.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
I dunno. There are still persistent, faint echoes of cultural differences between Royalist and Puritan towns and cities. Try a night out in Wigan and Bolton, or Newcastle and Sunderland for example.
Even more beans poured on the weetabix.
Rather than tease us Dixie what specifics support what you are saying?
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...
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.
I know there are a lot of them and they travel around Britain a lot and have lots of second and third homes and expensive tastes, but... well, surely their holidays are not that significant to the British tourism industry?
Why do our unelected rulers need so many palaces and royal estates? Tell them to pick one, and use the others to home the homeless, many of whom are ex service personnel.
Come on @MattW, tell me why the Queen needs so many residences and properties?
I think she 4 (?) official ones, which is the same as the President of France, and 2 major ones owned privately (Sandringham, Balmoral).
Arguably another official one is needed, as there is not one in Wales.
I have no problem with either the current setup, or reforming to a more "bicycling" monarchy.
I agree that the private ones should be taxed on the same basis as everyone else's, and that the current system is not fit for purpose.
Let's apply that 0.48% property tax instead of Council Tax, and that will help sort out Zara Tindall, and all the other people who have obtained huge properties they don't need from their parents.
I would be hit by that, but it would be a good move.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
Largely yes.
Though the Democrats pre dated the civil war, the Republicans replaced the Whigs with Lincoln the first elected Republican Party President.
The Tories originally arose as the party of the court, the landed gentry and the most pro monarchy, most pro Church of England party, while the Whigs were the party of the merchant classes and nonconformists
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
Largely yes.
Though the Democrats pre dated the civil war, the Republicans replaced the Whigs with Lincoln the first elected Republican Party President.
The Tories originally arose as the party of the court, the landed gentry and the most pro monarchy, most pro Church of England party, while the Whigs were the party of the merchant classes and nonconformists
They did indeed. If we were in the 18th century I'd probably be a Whig.
However neither the old Tory Party nor the Whig Party actually exist anymore. Today's Conservative Party is not the old Tory Party and has repeatedly swallowed up liberals who would have previously been Whigs.
Your clinging to 18th century definitions of parties that no longer exist is rather eccentric. Its like you're determined to make Rees Mogg appear to be a postmodernist in comparison.
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.
The data doesn't support that view. London has had the slowest roll out of all the major regions. The only reason people under 70 are getting doses is because there's low uptake in certain parts. Even with that the proportion of people who received a dose is lower in London than elsewhere in the country.
You're falling into the same non-London trap of blaming us for everything that happens in the country.
If London stops wanting to run everything that happens in the country, the rest of us would stop blaming you.
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...
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".
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
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?
If we can adapt to Brexit and the economic impact of that, we can adapt to being a republic and the somewhat smaller economic impact of that. Take back control!
(Tongue partly in cheek. I'm a republican on principle, but I'm not particularly bothered about the Royal Family. They're a long way down my to-do list when I'm finally put in my rightful place as supreme ruler.)
Brexiteers are more likely to be monarchists.
56% of Monarchists voted Leave in 2016 but 65% of Republicans voted Remain, no surprise as some of the latter would be happy with a President Von Der Leyen
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...
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".
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
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?
If we can adapt to Brexit and the economic impact of that, we can adapt to being a republic and the somewhat smaller economic impact of that. Take back control!
(Tongue partly in cheek. I'm a republican on principle, but I'm not particularly bothered about the Royal Family. They're a long way down my to-do list when I'm finally put in my rightful place as supreme ruler.)
Brexiteers are more likely to be monarchists.
56% of Monarchists voted Leave in 2016 but 65% of Republicans voted Remain, no surprise as some of the latter would be happy with a President Von Der Leyen
That post deserves the reminder that you, Mr. HYUFD voted Remain. It doesn't surprise me that those who wear their patriotism, and particularly their nationalism on their sleeve were more likely to vote Leave. They were gulled into believing a lie sown by Russia admiring Dominic Cummings and Nigel Farage that supporting a policy that was furthering the foreign policy objective of Vladimir Putin and was endorsed by Donald Trump was in Britain's patriotic interest. On this matter, as well as matters economic those that voted Leave were as thick as mince.
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Also @Cyclefree have you tried the website to book an appointment? Does someone have the link to do so?
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
That's only the advice for over 70s. Everyone else is still being asked to wait their turn.
I've just had a text from my GP asking anyone over 65 (or current healthcare workers) to get in touch for a vaccine: I think they mean group 5.
I am in Group 5 and I had my 1st vax on Saturday; I was called by phone the afternoon before. My son is in Group 6 and I hope that group remains the next priority and that various groups (e.g. teachers) don't try to push in.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
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.
Given that ethnic minorities are more at risk, I think it's sensible to allow London to move on to younger age groups.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
A few weeks ago there were complaints that the East of England wasn't getting it's share. I think we're OK now. Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Also @Cyclefree have you tried the website to book an appointment? Does someone have the link to do so?
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
That's only the advice for over 70s. Everyone else is still being asked to wait their turn.
I've just had a text from my GP asking anyone over 65 (or current healthcare workers) to get in touch for a vaccine: I think they mean group 5.
I am in Group 5 and I had my 1st vax on Saturday; I was called by phone the afternoon before. My son is in Group 6 and I hope that group remains the next priority and that various groups (e.g. teachers) don't try to push in.
Why don’t teachers claim they serve in soup kitchens once now and then for the homeless so are frontline health workers and get the jab early that way?
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I presume that criminals in prison will get the vaccine according to their grouping?
There would serious moral and legal issues with denying medical treatment to someone just because they are a bad person.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
I dunno. There are still persistent, faint echoes of cultural differences between Royalist and Puritan towns and cities. Try a night out in Wigan and Bolton, or Newcastle and Sunderland for example.
Even more beans poured on the weetabix.
Rather than tease us Dixie what specifics support what you are saying?
A general loucheness in the Royalist places I named. Wigan.The first hippy free festival at Bickershaw. First all night dance licence at Wigan Casino attracting punters from across the North. Literally dozens of clubs open late. Even had its own dance music, Wigan Bounce a few years ago. A seething mass of drinking, fighting and fornication. Bolton closed at 11. And was determined and happy to do so. Stag and hen dos go to Newcastle. They don't bother anywhere else in the UK AFAIAA. As I said it is faint. But still there. Edit. Forgot about Pit Brow Lasses. All this from the only loyal borough in Lancashire.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
I dunno. There are still persistent, faint echoes of cultural differences between Royalist and Puritan towns and cities. Try a night out in Wigan and Bolton, or Newcastle and Sunderland for example.
I'm sure that's the case, but they are faint echoes rather than strong cultural determinants. The great work on the subject is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I presume that criminals in prison will get the vaccine according to their grouping?
There would serious moral and legal issues with denying medical treatment to someone just because they are a bad person.
That's my assumption too. On the general point, the Hippocratic Oath says you treat people based only on medical need. There are many examples of doctors and nurses tending to sick sickos. Although is the "HO" a real thing these days? Not sure.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
I dunno. There are still persistent, faint echoes of cultural differences between Royalist and Puritan towns and cities. Try a night out in Wigan and Bolton, or Newcastle and Sunderland for example.
Even more beans poured on the weetabix.
Rather than tease us Dixie what specifics support what you are saying?
A general loucheness in the Royalist places I named. Wigan.The first hippy free festival at Bickershaw. First all night dance licence at Wigan Casino attracting punters from across the North. Literally dozens of clubs open late. Even had its own dance music, Wigan Bounce a few years ago. A seething mass of drinking, fighting and fornication. Bolton closed at 11. And was determined and happy to do so. Stag and hen dos go to Newcastle. They don't bother anywhere else in the UK AFAIAA. As I said it is faint. But still there. Edit. Forgot about Pit Brow Lasses. All this from the only loyal borough in Lancashire.
Puritan Bolton. It even rhymes.
Hippy/cavalier Wigan. We now have the seventeenth century cavalier as 1960s hippys. It sort of works...
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
You join me in the call for Gary Glitter to be vaccinated? Great. I wasn't sure you would. And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
You join me in the call for Gary Glitter to be vaccinated? Great. I wasn't sure you would. And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
Of course I want Glitter to be vaccinated, I want absolutely everyone who can be to be vaccinated ASAP. Its you that has been arguing against vaccinating everyone in this country ASAP, not me.
If you want Glitter vaccinated so that he doesn't catch the virus and give it to others, but you still don't want me vaccinated so that I can catch the virus and give it to others, then yes you are a hypocrite. The giving it to others argument applies to all adults not just Glitter.
So is it still your opinion that I should be denied a vaccine? Is it still your opinion that I should risk catching this virus and giving it to others? If so, then you are a hypocrite.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
One small technicality, it’s afternoon.
A good toss to win?
Well it was morning when I started. That flimsy little offering took me 7 minutes to write. But that's good - 7 minutes nearer to lunch and lunch is egg & soldiers. I'm regressing more and more to childhood as this pandemic continues.
The toss? Yes, you want to bat first out there. Especially if you knock up 578.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
You join me in the call for Gary Glitter to be vaccinated? Great. I wasn't sure you would. And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
On a similarly moral note, I understand we can now buy a jab for 10K. Should those who can afford to jump the queue with their 10K do so for the benefit of helping NHS and speeding the programme?
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
You join me in the call for Gary Glitter to be vaccinated? Great. I wasn't sure you would. And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
Of course I want Glitter to be vaccinated, I want absolutely everyone who can be to be vaccinated ASAP. Its you that has been arguing against vaccinating everyone in this country ASAP, not me.
If you want Glitter vaccinated so that he doesn't catch the virus and give it to others, but you still don't want me vaccinated so that I can catch the virus and give it to others, then yes you are a hypocrite. The giving it to others argument applies to all adults not just Glitter.
So is it still your opinion that I should be denied a vaccine? Is it still your opinion that I should risk catching this virus and giving it to others? If so, then you are a hypocrite.
The famously surly and unpleasant guy who ran the local shop down from a place we rented in south Devon was Gary Glitter's brother. His partner (wife?) was a delightful younger lady who taught the piano. One of those where you just idly mull over "what was the possible attraction?".
GB excess deaths have been less in the latest world-wide spike. Whisper it, but maybe we have finally learnt some lessons here?
Indeed. The other thing I just noticed is the different dates.
The most horrific looking nation in that list is Russia: their excess has just gone up and up as time goes on then the data abruptly stops in November. Their official figures are only 39k but the reality is over a quarter of a million so far without any of December onwards. Without stereotyping I highly doubt there's many open windows or outside mingling in Russia in December and January so reality will only be getting worse.
There's a party of me that wonders if Putin is even bothered about how many hundreds of thousands have died there? There's an awful argument that says that allowing the virus to wipe out many hundreds of thousands of retired people improves the demographics and economic situation in years to come - not something a western politician could ever suggest, but potentially going through the Kremlin's mind.
Once this is over I expect Russian excess deaths to number at least half a million.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
You join me in the call for Gary Glitter to be vaccinated? Great. I wasn't sure you would. And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
Of course I want Glitter to be vaccinated, I want absolutely everyone who can be to be vaccinated ASAP. Its you that has been arguing against vaccinating everyone in this country ASAP, not me.
If you want Glitter vaccinated so that he doesn't catch the virus and give it to others, but you still don't want me vaccinated so that I can catch the virus and give it to others, then yes you are a hypocrite. The giving it to others argument applies to all adults not just Glitter.
So is it still your opinion that I should be denied a vaccine? Is it still your opinion that I should risk catching this virus and giving it to others? If so, then you are a hypocrite.
Compromise: no-one under the age of 50 except convicted criminals gets vaccinated until the rest of the world does.
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I presume that criminals in prison will get the vaccine according to their grouping?
There would serious moral and legal issues with denying medical treatment to someone just because they are a bad person.
As a rule of thumb it is safe to assume that anything Piers Morgan says is wrong.
GB excess deaths have been less in the latest world-wide spike. Whisper it, but maybe we have finally learnt some lessons here?
Surely the bodies should be piling up in Florida and South Dakota as they don't have lockdowns or in some cases, even masks?
Except they aren't. Cases are falling in a similar way as they are for locked down US states.
Which is very f*cking awkward for a very, very large number of people.
Does Florida have a winter flu problem in normal years? Dont a lot of people move there specifically for the mild winters where they can spend time outdoors? Not everywhere is equal. Not all stats are driven by policy.
HY AND YD Scholars of our history. Here’s one for both of you then. And we may even get agreement and illumination.
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
I think US cultural traditions are perhaps more determined by the English Civil War divide. The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
Yes it is. The East of England, Kent, Essex, Suffolk, Lincs, Cambs, Hunts, etc, was the first place to be colonised by Anglo-Saxon invaders.
This same region was also the cradle of the Roundhead cause in the Civil War, Cromwell was from Hunts. Cambridge was Republican (Oxford was Royalist).
It is a mystery why these socio-cultural boundaries persists over so many centuries, but they do (there are multiple examples across Europe and Asia).
For some reason, if the English are going to have a successful revolution, it will generally start in the East. The west produces hapless peasant rebellions that fail.
GB excess deaths have been less in the latest world-wide spike. Whisper it, but maybe we have finally learnt some lessons here?
Surely the bodies should be piling up in Florida and South Dakota as they don't have lockdowns or in some cases, even masks?
Except they aren't. Cases are falling in a similar way as they are for locked down US states.
Which is very f*cking awkward for a very, very large number of people.
Does Florida have a winter flu problem in normal years? Dont a lot of people move there specifically for the mild winters where they can spend time outdoors? Not everywhere is equal. Not all stats are driven by policy.
And it is -20 in South Dakota. Probably not much going out and about in that!
Morning all. What a win in India! We must be the best cricket team in the world right now. But back to the serious stuff, the pandemic, I see Piers Morgan has raised the issue of whether Gary Glitter should be offered a vaccine. I hadn't given this much thought before, I actually thought he was dead, but having now done so I would say that, yes, he should. The reason? We shouldn't be bringing "merit" into the vaccine rollout. It's purely a public health matter. Let's not get sidetracked into a moral maze. He wouldn't be denied treatment for a stroke so on what ethical grounds could he be denied a vaccine for Covid? None that I can think of. Also, just being pragmatic, we don't want Glitter catching the virus and giving it to others. So, for me, it's a no-brainer. GG gets the vaccine (if he wants it) in accordance with his risk rating. This seems like a bit of cheap populism from Piers to me.
I agree with you entirely.
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don'tdo want Glitterunder 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
You join me in the call for Gary Glitter to be vaccinated? Great. I wasn't sure you would. And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
Of course I want Glitter to be vaccinated, I want absolutely everyone who can be to be vaccinated ASAP. Its you that has been arguing against vaccinating everyone in this country ASAP, not me.
If you want Glitter vaccinated so that he doesn't catch the virus and give it to others, but you still don't want me vaccinated so that I can catch the virus and give it to others, then yes you are a hypocrite. The giving it to others argument applies to all adults not just Glitter.
So is it still your opinion that I should be denied a vaccine? Is it still your opinion that I should risk catching this virus and giving it to others? If so, then you are a hypocrite.
Comments
Later on, he became PM.
I think you misread my comment...
You keep talking about fairness, frankly it's a bit nauseating. You're talking about waiting a few extra days, maybe a week for your first dose. Under 50s will be waiting months and people in the developing world could be waiting for years.
As I said, I understand that you're anxious to be immunised, everyone is. Less of the "me, me, me" and more consideration for people who aren't going to get them months or years when you consider you'll be waiting for maybe an extra week or two.
Even the article you link to says:
"The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers."
If you believe what "tourism authorities" predict you will believe literally anything.
The 2011 royal wedding cost the UK economy billions.
Or try reading this
https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/14/news/economy/royal-wedding-uk-economy/index.html
which includes facts such as:
"There was also no significant boom in tourist arrivals or spending on and around the last royal wedding. The number of people arriving in the UK in April 2011 was little changed, and roughly 500,000 Brits took advantage of the extra day off to leave the country."
So a net loss even in terms of tourism.
The UK media is so disgustingly servile in its pro-royal spin that even the Guardian is in full-on puke-making lying propaganda mode every time the royals do something perfectly ordinary like get married, or produce a child.
This article claims impeachment has a useful effect even if it doesn't end in a conviction. I am not completely convinced, but interesting argument nevertheless.
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1358987394666684421
The main reason behind the drop in numbers was that supply from Pfizer and AstraZeneca had been constrained, which limited the number of jabs that could be offered.
Personally, I think it's odd that men weren't prioritized.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13248642.
As a leftwing republican you obviously have an ideological anti monarchy agenda anathema to a Tory such as myself, however I note even Starmer has now accepted the monarchy is here to stay even if he wants it in a more reformed form after the monarchist Boris trounced the republican Corbyn at the 2019 general election.
The monarchy is here to stay
During US election we agreed on here, the original Republican Democrat party allegiance stemmed from the US civil war.
I read something the other day, Roundhead supporters became the Whigs, the Royalist Cavaliers supporters became the Tories. Our original Party allegiance stemmed from the Civil War?
It went on to say, roundhead and cavalier started as insults from the other side adopted by their own side, and Whig and Tory were too!
Moreover, I am suggesting that you misread my comment, because you said in your reply that Churchill was King during the latter stages of Baldwin’s tenure. I can only conclude you didn’t read what I wrote correctly.
I am also rapidly coming to the conclusion that reading comprehension was not required at Warwick as part of their History course...or indeed for DILS at Aber (although knowing a lot about that course that does surprise me).
(Tongue partly in cheek. I'm a republican on principle, but I'm not particularly bothered about the Royal Family. They're a long way down my to-do list when I'm finally put in my rightful place as supreme ruler.)
In our own day, to sympathise with Trump and believe he was the better candidate in 2015/2016, assuming he would campaign in (bad) poetry and govern in (less bad) prose when up against an awful, self absorbed, entitled, deplorable candidate like Hilary Clinton is at least understandable. Less so for anyone thinking so in 2020/21.
Rejoice!
Anyway, I have to put a suit on, fire up the webcam and teach. See you later.
The Queen should also be criticised for the lack of corononations over the last 69 years. Timely abdication could give us a much needed post-Covid/post-Brexit tourism boost.
The reason for some in groups 5&6 being done already - and the same is happening nationwide - is due to the realities of distribution. Every area gets limited amounts of vaccines and the most important element is using them all. If not enough people from group 4 are available to be vaccinated then don't waste any vaccines, use them.
EG a box of Pfizer vaccines has 975 doses in it, which must all be used in a 3 day window. If a GP surgery gets a box of doses and is able to only get 900 group 4 patients in for that 3 day window then that leaves them 75 doses to offer to those not yet prioritised.
This has happened since the very beginning. Although technically the oldest priority group was 80+ I know from my grandparents that the local hospital in the beginning was calling the 90+ first then moving down the ages. My grandad (91) was called very early on, my nanna (80s) did not get the call but as she is in her 80s was able to be booked in at the same time as my grandad so that they could both make the journey once together.
PS I appreciate statistics don't help but take some encouragement from the statistics rather than fear from articles spreading panic. The North is doing very well at getting vaccines out thankfully, fingers crossed you get yours sooner than later.
* A lack of bananas may be a contributory factor.
Ms Cyclefree, are there no large vaccination centres you can get to? Phone for an an appointment? Carnforth Racecourse? One of the reasonably local hospitals?
Edi. I googled and found this: https://www.uhmb.nhs.uk/news-and-events/latest-news/new-nhs-vaccination-services-set-open-south-cumbria
Having a good day?
The royalists settled generally in the southern colonies, and protestants and dissenters of various sorts in the northern. Those geographic cultural divides persist to this day, in a way which isn't really true of the UK.
Does it help brand UK, or harm it? It depends if you think there is more benefit than harm in the rest of the world thinking the UK is hopelessly stuck in the past. Probably does more harm than good to brand UK on balance.
I know a few people here last week said they got their appointment that way and yesterday Hancock urged anyone still waiting to do so rather than wait for their call anymore. May be worth trying that seeing if you get the appointment that way?
Just you have an ideological, anti monarchy agenda
Bonkers on stilts.
You are opening up the idea both English and US civil wars are linked, added to the idea voting allegiance in both country’s stemmed from their own civil wars.
What is really going on here?
Here is a tip Philip (if that is your real name), if you are just a wild venting uninformed thought, try starting your post with "My guess is...", or "my take on this is..." or (for post lockdown) "the bloke down the pub says...".
Just a suggestion. And, yes thank you, I am having a very good day.
Though the Democrats pre dated the civil war, the Republicans replaced the Whigs with Lincoln the first elected Republican Party President.
The Tories originally arose as the party of the court, the landed gentry and the most pro monarchy, most pro Church of England party, while the Whigs were the party of the merchant classes and nonconformists
Try a night out in Wigan and Bolton, or Newcastle and Sunderland for example.
56% of Monarchists voted Leave in 2016 but 65% of Republicans voted Remain, no surprise as some of the latter would be happy with a President Von Der Leyen
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
Although I am a republican, on the basis of everyone progressing in life based on their own ability, not though an accident of birth, I would accept a Norwegian or Dutch style of monarchy, not our family of bloated parasites.
Some of the most democratic countries do indeed have constitutional monarchies, and while I am against the monarchy on principle, it is really not a priority to get rid of it, and may well be more trouble that it is worth.
But the ridiculous spin about the immense riches they are showering on the country every time one of them gets married is just laughable.
Rather than tease us Dixie what specifics support what you are saying?
Arguably another official one is needed, as there is not one in Wales.
I have no problem with either the current setup, or reforming to a more "bicycling" monarchy.
I agree that the private ones should be taxed on the same basis as everyone else's, and that the current system is not fit for purpose.
Let's apply that 0.48% property tax instead of Council Tax, and that will help sort out Zara Tindall, and all the other people who have obtained huge properties they don't need from their parents.
I would be hit by that, but it would be a good move.
Agree?
Edit: have checked the backing data. Percentages are "top mentions", meaning "1st or other mention".
394 MPs contacted, 135 interviewed, 86 answered this question. I think we can safely conclude the results are unlikely to be representative.
However neither the old Tory Party nor the Whig Party actually exist anymore. Today's Conservative Party is not the old Tory Party and has repeatedly swallowed up liberals who would have previously been Whigs.
Your clinging to 18th century definitions of parties that no longer exist is rather eccentric. Its like you're determined to make Rees Mogg appear to be a postmodernist in comparison.
https://twitter.com/USAinUK/status/1359108045427666944?s=20
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2021-02/ipsos_mori_-_most_impressive_parliamentarian_-_mps_survey_-_feb_21.pdf
But wonder if you're a hypocrite if you don't do want Glitter under 50s catching the virus and giving it to others?
There would serious moral and legal issues with denying medical treatment to someone just because they are a bad person.
Stag and hen dos go to Newcastle. They don't bother anywhere else in the UK AFAIAA.
As I said it is faint. But still there.
Edit. Forgot about Pit Brow Lasses.
All this from the only loyal borough in Lancashire.
A good toss to win?
Look at the discrepancy between recorded Covid-19 deaths and excess deaths in Russia etc
The great work on the subject is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion's_Seed
Hippy/cavalier Wigan. We now have the seventeenth century cavalier as 1960s hippys. It sort of works...
And thankfully I'm not a hypocrite for all the reasons previously set out and accepted by everybody.
If you want Glitter vaccinated so that he doesn't catch the virus and give it to others, but you still don't want me vaccinated so that I can catch the virus and give it to others, then yes you are a hypocrite. The giving it to others argument applies to all adults not just Glitter.
So is it still your opinion that I should be denied a vaccine? Is it still your opinion that I should risk catching this virus and giving it to others? If so, then you are a hypocrite.
The toss? Yes, you want to bat first out there. Especially if you knock up 578.
https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1359065885357522944
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000s4jv
The most horrific looking nation in that list is Russia: their excess has just gone up and up as time goes on then the data abruptly stops in November. Their official figures are only 39k but the reality is over a quarter of a million so far without any of December onwards. Without stereotyping I highly doubt there's many open windows or outside mingling in Russia in December and January so reality will only be getting worse.
There's a party of me that wonders if Putin is even bothered about how many hundreds of thousands have died there? There's an awful argument that says that allowing the virus to wipe out many hundreds of thousands of retired people improves the demographics and economic situation in years to come - not something a western politician could ever suggest, but potentially going through the Kremlin's mind.
Once this is over I expect Russian excess deaths to number at least half a million.
Except they aren't. Cases are falling in a similar way as they are for locked down US states.
Which is very f*cking awkward for a very, very large number of people.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
Florida's weather is a bit different to ours in case you never noticed that.
https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1359090930175913986?s=21
This same region was also the cradle of the Roundhead cause in the Civil War, Cromwell was from Hunts. Cambridge was Republican (Oxford was Royalist).
Thatcher was from Grantham Lincs.
The biggest pro-Brexit vote was in Boston Lincs.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/03/09/brexit-has-the-semblance-of-a-new-english-civil-war/
It is a mystery why these socio-cultural boundaries persists over so many centuries, but they do (there are multiple examples across Europe and Asia).
For some reason, if the English are going to have a successful revolution, it will generally start in the East. The west produces hapless peasant rebellions that fail.