Good news for the West Midlands! I think it makes sense from a branding perspective.
Bad news for the West Midlands: JLR to “substantially reduce and rationalise” non-manufacturing jobs Castle Bromwich factory to only produce run out existing models (so closes by 2025)
Vaccine passports for travel are coming very soon. It's the only way to revive tourism and business travel. Other countries are demanding them so we will have to provide them to Brits who want a holiday
Vaccine visas for everyday life.. hmmm... I wouldn't rule it out
Vaccine visas won't happen for free entry general stuff like the pub, or the supermarket. Places that cost on entry - cinemas, some nightclubs maybe.
Can't see it. 20-30yr olds not vaccinated until the Autumn so what...the youngsters stay at home will the old gits head off to the flicks?
It'll come in if enough customers demand it. Seat distancing (As it will be once cinemas are allowed again) and not a vax QR code will be the temporary "new normal" but cinemas may well want to get back to full capacity, and vax codes will be a way of doing that. I'd expect it to be implemented after everyone has been offered a first jab.
On a slight aside, you never seem to be able to forsee any sort of health measure that might come at the expense of one person giving up ~ 1/1000th of their privacy that they do to Facebook on a daily basis. Are you in the Covid research group ?
As for the slight aside, I think there is and should be a balance between economic, mental and social wellbeing and purely health issues.
As I said in March, if you have a daily 5pm press conference with the PM, CMO and CSO about steeplechasing it would be banned within days. Of course steeplechasing is not infectious and hence the save lives/protect the NHS aim is a very sensible one. But the aim is not to eradicate Covid, nor save fit people from spending two weeks in bed.
Why must you persist giving this clown oxygen? He's an idiot. Ignore him.
He's a prominent Brussels reporter - and clearly represents a strain of "thinking" (sic) - I'd rather know what they're "thinking" than not. Wouldn't you?
I'd like to know what they're smoking (and I'm not sure I want any!)
The Johnson and Anglosphere worship is truly pathetic this morning.
Johnson is a cretin, and five minutes ago the US was in the middle of an attempted coup d’etat by the worst President or its history.
As always for the incel crowd, it is not enough for Brexit to succeed, the EU must also fail.
You're being cretinous yourself. Or illiterate.
The entire premise of the article is that the EU won't fail too badly, because the UK and USA have led the way out of this pandemic and the EU will be able to benefit from our success.
The EU failing would be a bad thing, we don't want that. We want them to be able to catch up with us, its a shame they didn't do the right thing in the first place but we can show them the way out and they can follow us.
I've never expressed a desire for the EU to fail or collapse - although I have criticised them vociferously and argued for fundamental reform - so this looks like @Gardenwalker projecting to me.
He has his good days and bad days, just like most of us.
I’m not sure I was talking about you. Rather, the general vibe of Brexity posters.
As PT says, we actually need the EU to succeed economically.
However for Brexiters, having cast them as an evil, “sclerotic” enemy & made a decision to vote Leave, it is now necessary to find and celebrate reasons for the EU’s failure.
This is a well known example of psychological self-justification in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The EU are sclerotic.
On this the EU are failing.
Pointing out failures isn't willing them to fail. The first step to fixing your problems is to acknowledge they exist.
Why are you still pointing out the EU’s failures? Isn’t there enough in your wank bank already?
Imagine if you put this much energy into solving the problems of increased red tape for exporters.
Because people like you still deny they exist and still deny that the UK has any advantages from taking back control.
Nope.
It would be very odd to deny the EU experiences failures, and their vaccination programme is surely the most notable.
I would not pass so lightly over Borrell’s disastrous trip to Moscow a few weeks ago either. Some are calling it the effective end of EU as a foreign policy actor.
It’s possible to walk *and* chew gum at the same time, you know. You should try it some time.
Philip's very binary belief in Brexit Britain being marvellous and the EU being the personification of evil is quaint and shocking at the same time. Admittedly he is probably not quite at the level of the QAnon fanatic, but when you see such religious faith in a political ideology and such a hatred of an alternative one it is possible to see how the QAnon movement has grown in the US
Except its not true. You're projecting.
I have always acknowledged that the EU has its advantages and I was torn as to whether we should remain or leave. I nearly voted Remain and I still see the advantages of Remaining.
I don't believe Brexit Britain will be marvellous. I do believe there will be costs as well as benefits for Britain leaving.
I don't believe the EU is a personification of evil. I believe it is sclerotic and undemocratic but not evil. It has some good things going for it, but being democratic and being nimble are not a part of that.
I believe that Britain will be better off out of the EU, but only just. It was and remains in my eye a very close thing. But having made the decision we should do it properly.
Nice try to pretend you are balanced in your views Philip, but the evidence just isn't there. I have never seen a nuanced post on the EU from you. You are a fanatic, and that is your right. Be proud of your populist right wing views and don't allow me or anyone else to cause you to pretend otherwise.
Can't stay for your reply I am afraid. Need to get some lunch and then do some work to work out how I can exploit the opportunity that is the brave new world of Brexit Britain. Heil Johnson!
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
The Johnson and Anglosphere worship is truly pathetic this morning.
Johnson is a cretin, and five minutes ago the US was in the middle of an attempted coup d’etat by the worst President or its history.
As always for the incel crowd, it is not enough for Brexit to succeed, the EU must also fail.
You're being cretinous yourself. Or illiterate.
The entire premise of the article is that the EU won't fail too badly, because the UK and USA have led the way out of this pandemic and the EU will be able to benefit from our success.
The EU failing would be a bad thing, we don't want that. We want them to be able to catch up with us, its a shame they didn't do the right thing in the first place but we can show them the way out and they can follow us.
I've never expressed a desire for the EU to fail or collapse - although I have criticised them vociferously and argued for fundamental reform - so this looks like @Gardenwalker projecting to me.
He has his good days and bad days, just like most of us.
I’m not sure I was talking about you. Rather, the general vibe of Brexity posters.
As PT says, we actually need the EU to succeed economically.
However for Brexiters, having cast them as an evil, “sclerotic” enemy & made a decision to vote Leave, it is now necessary to find and celebrate reasons for the EU’s failure.
This is a well known example of psychological self-justification in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The EU are sclerotic.
On this the EU are failing.
Pointing out failures isn't willing them to fail. The first step to fixing your problems is to acknowledge they exist.
Why are you still pointing out the EU’s failures? Isn’t there enough in your wank bank already?
Imagine if you put this much energy into solving the problems of increased red tape for exporters.
Because people like you still deny they exist and still deny that the UK has any advantages from taking back control.
Nope.
It would be very odd to deny the EU experiences failures, and their vaccination programme is surely the most notable.
I would not pass so lightly over Borrell’s disastrous trip to Moscow a few weeks ago either. Some are calling it the effective end of EU as a foreign policy actor.
It’s possible to walk *and* chew gum at the same time, you know. You should try it some time.
Philip's very binary belief in Brexit Britain being marvellous and the EU being the personification of evil is quaint and shocking at the same time. Admittedly he is probably not quite at the level of the QAnon fanatic, but when you see such religious faith in a political ideology and such a hatred of an alternative one it is possible to see how the QAnon movement has grown in the US
Except its not true. You're projecting.
I have always acknowledged that the EU has its advantages and I was torn as to whether we should remain or leave. I nearly voted Remain and I still see the advantages of Remaining.
I don't believe Brexit Britain will be marvellous. I do believe there will be costs as well as benefits for Britain leaving.
I don't believe the EU is a personification of evil. I believe it is sclerotic and undemocratic but not evil. It has some good things going for it, but being democratic and being nimble are not a part of that.
I believe that Britain will be better off out of the EU, but only just. It was and remains in my eye a very close thing. But having made the decision we should do it properly.
Nice try to pretend you are balanced in your views Philip, but the evidence just isn't there. I have never seen a nuanced post on the EU from you. You are a fanatic, and that is your right. Be proud of your populist right wing views and don't allow me or anyone else to cause you to pretend otherwise.
Can't stay for your reply I am afraid. Need to get some lunch and then do some work to work out how I can exploit the opportunity that is the brave new world of Brexit Britain. Heil Johnson!
Good news for the West Midlands! I think it makes sense from a branding perspective.
It does make a sort of sense - to be focused on one type of engine means the maker becomes known for that. There is plenty of potential there, with Tesla currently the only electric specialist marque, and therefore reaping the benefits. However, I am not entirely sure I'd try and make Jaguar that brand, as opposed to starting a new one. However, it's an interesting strategy.
ICE cars are going to be heading through a phased obselecence in the 2030s, as EVERY manufacturer will be doing this. Tesla's ludicrous valuation will approach reality as the all electric horizon dawns.
It will, but branding wise they will still have a big advantage in being first to be known as an electric specialist. The others will be Kodak brands in a world of digital photography.
Vaccine passports for travel are coming very soon. It's the only way to revive tourism and business travel. Other countries are demanding them so we will have to provide them to Brits who want a holiday
Vaccine visas for everyday life.. hmmm... I wouldn't rule it out
Vaccine visas won't happen for free entry general stuff like the pub, or the supermarket. Places that cost on entry - cinemas, some nightclubs maybe.
Can't see it. 20-30yr olds not vaccinated until the Autumn so what...the youngsters stay at home will the old gits head off to the flicks?
Who's saying until the autumn, except a few mediatwits?
The whole lot will be done by midsummer, absent unknown-as-yet problems.
The Johnson and Anglosphere worship is truly pathetic this morning.
Johnson is a cretin, and five minutes ago the US was in the middle of an attempted coup d’etat by the worst President or its history.
As always for the incel crowd, it is not enough for Brexit to succeed, the EU must also fail.
You’re allowed to hate Johnson, and hate Trump, but still acknowledge that the UK and USA have been by far the biggest contributors to getting the world out of this mess.
That's fair. I'd also note that most of the key work underpinning the mRNA vaccines was the contribution of recent immigrants to the US. Their openness and attraction to foreign talent is a great strength that they should not surrender.
And that is why it really is "the equivalent of the WW2 Manhattan Project".
Los Alamos was of course peopled largely by immigrant scientists under the leadership of the US/UK following the Quebec Agreement. It was an international scientific effort.
@rcs1000 has found a really brilliant & telling historical analogy.
Surely, his comparison is waiting to be nicked by the mainstream media. We'll find out soon enough which journos crib from the site.
I explained at the beginning of the thread why it's a deeply flawed analogy.
You said "The science, production technology and much of the infrastructure behind even the mRNA vaccines was well characterised and in place before the pandemic began: that was certainly not true in any respect for the bomb and WWII."
The Manhattan Project was a greater challenge, but then it took 4 years.
The Covid Project had the advantage of more things in place beforehand, so we expect it done more quickly. It took under a year.
Both are still incredible achievements of international teams of scientists.
Science is the real hero of our time.
That's true. The Manhattan Project was of a different order, though. For the vaccines, we were basically giving a lot of money to companies to do what we already knew they could do, but quicker, with a fair prospect of success (new vaccines have a far better record of trial success than any other type of pharmaceutical).
For the bomb, we were taking a leap into the scientific unknown, with utterly uncertain results, and in the process had to create new manufacturing industries and techniques from scratch. For example... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Engineer_Works
Vaccine passports for travel are coming very soon. It's the only way to revive tourism and business travel. Other countries are demanding them so we will have to provide them to Brits who want a holiday
Vaccine visas for everyday life.. hmmm... I wouldn't rule it out
Vaccine visas won't happen for free entry general stuff like the pub, or the supermarket. Places that cost on entry - cinemas, some nightclubs maybe.
Can't see it. 20-30yr olds not vaccinated until the Autumn so what...the youngsters stay at home will the old gits head off to the flicks?
Who's saying until the autumn, except a few mediatwits?
The whole lot will be done by midsummer, absent unknown-as-yet problems.
Going by this report. No idea how accurate it is. Now I reread this it doesn't actually say autumn. But any time you let the oldies go party and the youngsters cooped up is not a great look.
Vaccine passports for travel are coming very soon. It's the only way to revive tourism and business travel. Other countries are demanding them so we will have to provide them to Brits who want a holiday
Vaccine visas for everyday life.. hmmm... I wouldn't rule it out
Vaccine visas won't happen for free entry general stuff like the pub, or the supermarket. Places that cost on entry - cinemas, some nightclubs maybe.
Can't see it. 20-30yr olds not vaccinated until the Autumn so what...the youngsters stay at home will the old gits head off to the flicks?
Who's saying until the autumn, except a few mediatwits?
The whole lot will be done by midsummer, absent unknown-as-yet problems.
I was encouraged by the speculative timeline put out by someone upthread (forgotten who but they weren’t a nutter).
March - Schools April - Retail and Outdoor Dining May - Indoor Dining w/ Restrictions June - “Back to normal”
In practice I’d imagine face-masks will continue as mandatory for quite some time.
I also don’t really expect to see foreign travel resume until mid summer earliest (with the help of vaccine passports).
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist.
I can see only one thing wrong with what the BoE is doing: they shouldn't be wasting time on a consultation. There's nothing to consult about.
The PM's next car will be an SUV or 4x4 of some kind as that is what the market wants.
It’s quite sad, but the market seems to love these big, heavy SUVs that drink petrol and wear out the roads. If I need a big car, I’ll buy the estate or wagon version - still the one with the V8 though!
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist.
I can see only one thing wrong with what the BoE is doing: they shouldn't be wasting time on a consultation. There's nothing to consult about.
Once again, what might seem like onerous capital requirements for banks will actually help the UK stay ahead of the curve for investors and we know the latter determine under what jurisdiction their money is invested. Having lax rules on this isn't going to help the EU shake the sense that they don't know what they're doing on financial regulations now that the UK has left.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist.
I can see only one thing wrong with what the BoE is doing: they shouldn't be wasting time on a consultation. There's nothing to consult about.
I suspect it was seen as a (very cheap) re-capitalisation exercise. Take something existing (and probably already valued in the €100ms) and move it to a different part of the balance sheet as real capital.
Why is it only people in IT see it for what it really is an unavoidable cost that could instantly be worthless.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist.
I can see only one thing wrong with what the BoE is doing: they shouldn't be wasting time on a consultation. There's nothing to consult about.
I suspect it was seen as a (very cheap) re-capitalisation exercise. Take something existing (and probably already valued in the €100ms) and move it to a different part of the balance sheet as real capital.
Why is it only people in IT see it for what it really is an unavoidable cost that could instantly be worthless.
That's not entirely fair, the BoE has seen it too!
The Johnson and Anglosphere worship is truly pathetic this morning.
Johnson is a cretin, and five minutes ago the US was in the middle of an attempted coup d’etat by the worst President or its history.
As always for the incel crowd, it is not enough for Brexit to succeed, the EU must also fail.
You're being cretinous yourself. Or illiterate.
The entire premise of the article is that the EU won't fail too badly, because the UK and USA have led the way out of this pandemic and the EU will be able to benefit from our success.
The EU failing would be a bad thing, we don't want that. We want them to be able to catch up with us, its a shame they didn't do the right thing in the first place but we can show them the way out and they can follow us.
I've never expressed a desire for the EU to fail or collapse - although I have criticised them vociferously and argued for fundamental reform - so this looks like @Gardenwalker projecting to me.
He has his good days and bad days, just like most of us.
I’m not sure I was talking about you. Rather, the general vibe of Brexity posters.
As PT says, we actually need the EU to succeed economically.
However for Brexiters, having cast them as an evil, “sclerotic” enemy & made a decision to vote Leave, it is now necessary to find and celebrate reasons for the EU’s failure.
This is a well known example of psychological self-justification in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The EU are sclerotic.
On this the EU are failing.
Pointing out failures isn't willing them to fail. The first step to fixing your problems is to acknowledge they exist.
Why are you still pointing out the EU’s failures? Isn’t there enough in your wank bank already?
Imagine if you put this much energy into solving the problems of increased red tape for exporters.
Because people like you still deny they exist and still deny that the UK has any advantages from taking back control.
Nope.
It would be very odd to deny the EU experiences failures, and their vaccination programme is surely the most notable.
I would not pass so lightly over Borrell’s disastrous trip to Moscow a few weeks ago either. Some are calling it the effective end of EU as a foreign policy actor.
It’s possible to walk *and* chew gum at the same time, you know. You should try it some time.
Philip's very binary belief in Brexit Britain being marvellous and the EU being the personification of evil is quaint and shocking at the same time. Admittedly he is probably not quite at the level of the QAnon fanatic, but when you see such religious faith in a political ideology and such a hatred of an alternative one it is possible to see how the QAnon movement has grown in the US
Since January, I have found PB to have been little better than a Trumpian-style echo chamber where the Brexiteers all tell each how brilliant everything is.
Vaccine passports for travel are coming very soon. It's the only way to revive tourism and business travel. Other countries are demanding them so we will have to provide them to Brits who want a holiday
Vaccine visas for everyday life.. hmmm... I wouldn't rule it out
Vaccine visas won't happen for free entry general stuff like the pub, or the supermarket. Places that cost on entry - cinemas, some nightclubs maybe.
Can't see it. 20-30yr olds not vaccinated until the Autumn so what...the youngsters stay at home will the old gits head off to the flicks?
Who's saying until the autumn, except a few mediatwits?
The whole lot will be done by midsummer, absent unknown-as-yet problems.
I was encouraged by the speculative timeline put out by someone upthread (forgotten who but they weren’t a nutter).
March - Schools April - Retail and Outdoor Dining May - Indoor Dining w/ Restrictions June - “Back to normal”
In practice I’d imagine face-masks will continue as mandatory for quite some time.
I also don’t really expect to see foreign travel resume until mid summer earliest (with the help of vaccine passports).
I agree with you on that.
I think we will be towards fully open 3 weeks after all adult vaccinations are done.
The Johnson and Anglosphere worship is truly pathetic this morning.
Johnson is a cretin, and five minutes ago the US was in the middle of an attempted coup d’etat by the worst President or its history.
As always for the incel crowd, it is not enough for Brexit to succeed, the EU must also fail.
You're being cretinous yourself. Or illiterate.
The entire premise of the article is that the EU won't fail too badly, because the UK and USA have led the way out of this pandemic and the EU will be able to benefit from our success.
The EU failing would be a bad thing, we don't want that. We want them to be able to catch up with us, its a shame they didn't do the right thing in the first place but we can show them the way out and they can follow us.
I've never expressed a desire for the EU to fail or collapse - although I have criticised them vociferously and argued for fundamental reform - so this looks like @Gardenwalker projecting to me.
He has his good days and bad days, just like most of us.
I’m not sure I was talking about you. Rather, the general vibe of Brexity posters.
As PT says, we actually need the EU to succeed economically.
However for Brexiters, having cast them as an evil, “sclerotic” enemy & made a decision to vote Leave, it is now necessary to find and celebrate reasons for the EU’s failure.
This is a well known example of psychological self-justification in order to avoid cognitive dissonance.
The EU are sclerotic.
On this the EU are failing.
Pointing out failures isn't willing them to fail. The first step to fixing your problems is to acknowledge they exist.
Why are you still pointing out the EU’s failures? Isn’t there enough in your wank bank already?
Imagine if you put this much energy into solving the problems of increased red tape for exporters.
Because people like you still deny they exist and still deny that the UK has any advantages from taking back control.
Nope.
It would be very odd to deny the EU experiences failures, and their vaccination programme is surely the most notable.
I would not pass so lightly over Borrell’s disastrous trip to Moscow a few weeks ago either. Some are calling it the effective end of EU as a foreign policy actor.
It’s possible to walk *and* chew gum at the same time, you know. You should try it some time.
Philip's very binary belief in Brexit Britain being marvellous and the EU being the personification of evil is quaint and shocking at the same time. Admittedly he is probably not quite at the level of the QAnon fanatic, but when you see such religious faith in a political ideology and such a hatred of an alternative one it is possible to see how the QAnon movement has grown in the US
Since January, I have found PB to have been little better than a Trumpian-style echo chamber where the Brexiteers all tell each how brilliant everything is.
You’ve heard of a confederacy of dunces? It’s a wankery of incels.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
Even ignoring the second half of you sentence.
The bank will already have working software for everything they do - why would they want a replacement (equally legacy) system?
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist.
I can see only one thing wrong with what the BoE is doing: they shouldn't be wasting time on a consultation. There's nothing to consult about.
I suspect it was seen as a (very cheap) re-capitalisation exercise. Take something existing (and probably already valued in the €100ms) and move it to a different part of the balance sheet as real capital.
Why is it only people in IT see it for what it really is an unavoidable cost that could instantly be worthless.
That's not entirely fair, the BoE has seen it too!
Have you ever met anyone who has worked on a BoE IT project.. I have so I can understand how they reached the conclusion they have.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
Depends where you live in the world - some places allow licences to be resold.
However most large vendors have moved towards annual fees rather than upfront fees.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
I think the class of software included is what banks create for their own internal systems. Stuff like custom ML models, data visualisation and maybe even database query scripts that have high degrees of automation. That all costs a lot of money for the bank to create but is generally worthless to any third parties. In terms of external software, don't forget that the majority is now licenced under SaaS models so the bank doesn't actually own anything to resell from third parties.
Vaccine passports for travel are coming very soon. It's the only way to revive tourism and business travel. Other countries are demanding them so we will have to provide them to Brits who want a holiday
Vaccine visas for everyday life.. hmmm... I wouldn't rule it out
Vaccine visas won't happen for free entry general stuff like the pub, or the supermarket. Places that cost on entry - cinemas, some nightclubs maybe.
Can't see it. 20-30yr olds not vaccinated until the Autumn so what...the youngsters stay at home will the old gits head off to the flicks?
Who's saying until the autumn, except a few mediatwits?
The whole lot will be done by midsummer, absent unknown-as-yet problems.
At current rates and 100% take-up, all 52.8m UK adults will have two shots by 10/09/21.
Assuming 80% take-up (42.2m) both shots would be completed by 23/07/21.
Of course the vaccination rate will increase considerably over then next two months.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
Depends where you live in the world - some places allow licences to be resold.
However most large vendors have moved towards annual fees rather than upfront fees.
Not if it's SaaS, though. Our Looker subscription will just be terminated and we're left with some underlying data and LookML code which has zero value anyway.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
Depends where you live in the world - some places allow licences to be resold.
However most large vendors have moved towards annual fees rather than upfront fees.
Not if it's SaaS, though. Our Looker subscription will just be terminated and we're left with some underlying data and LookML code which has zero value anyway.
Why do you think I mentioned annual fees - the era when you sold software for a one off cost was 15 years ago. Since then SaaS or annual subscriptions fees appeared to both lower immediate costs and to increase longer term profits and viability.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
That's my experience. Huge development costs on bespoke software, e.g. online platforms. Not sure any of that is a saleable asset though.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
Depends where you live in the world - some places allow licences to be resold.
However most large vendors have moved towards annual fees rather than upfront fees.
Not if it's SaaS, though. Our Looker subscription will just be terminated and we're left with some underlying data and LookML code which has zero value anyway.
Why do you think I mentioned annual fees - the era when you sold software for a one off cost was 15 years ago. Since then SaaS or annual subscriptions fees appeared to both lower immediate costs and to increase longer term profits and viability.
Indeed, and the cost of deployment is close to zero, especially with web interfaces like Asana or JIRA.
Buried deep in the rolling feed on the BBC world news web page:
The EU has approved vaccine exports to 21 non-EU countries this month, including the US, UK and China - despite continuing vaccine shortages in the EU, German broadcaster ARD reports. The vaccine delays have caused anger in much of Europe, where far fewer people have had the jab than in the UK and US.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
That's my experience. Huge development costs on bespoke software, e.g. online platforms. Not sure any of that is a saleable asset though.
It can be if it was designed to be resellable in the first place but those ideals would never survive the first customer request.
Software has a value - a company couldn't survive without it but that doesn't mean the software has any value for anyone else...
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
That's not really how regulatory capital measurement works. There are all sorts of different balance sheet items that can be included within the net assets (allowable for reg purposes) calculation. They don't need to be saleable, per se; they just need to fit into certain 'loss absorbing' criteria.
It's a good case of how being able to regulate based on the more sophisticated understanding that London has should be a good thing. It doesn't need to result in a lower capital requirement (a lot of capital requirements will be driven by the rating agencies anyway), but as long as it's simpler, more transparent and easier for investors to understand it will be a positive factor.
(Please, please, let them go after Solvency II and MIFID next....)
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
I must say I find this incredible. Even the 70.9% figure seems far too low.
I think to solution is not direct complusion but indirect incentivisation via visa passports for travel and other leisure activities, supported by ongoing education of course.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
That's my experience. Huge development costs on bespoke software, e.g. online platforms. Not sure any of that is a saleable asset though.
The best way to look at it is like buying a painting from a friend. It costs a lot of money and it has high value to you personally because it brings joy to have the painting and help out a friend. It holds no value in the market because your friend isn't a famous artist and so even though personally you give it very high value, the true value is zero.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
That's not really how regulatory capital measurement works. There are all sorts of different balance sheet items that can be included within the net assets (allowable for reg purposes) calculation. They don't need to be saleable, per se; they just need to fit into certain 'loss absorbing' criteria.
It's a good case of how being able to regulate based on the more sophisticated understanding that London has should be a good thing. It doesn't need to result in a lower capital requirement (a lot of capital requirements will be driven by the rating agencies anyway), but as long as it's simpler, more transparent and easier for investors to understand it will be a positive factor.
(Please, please, let them go after Solvency II and MIFID next....)
They already have (the latter) - LiS thresholds have been lowered for dark pool trading in the UK. Not to say that ESMA won't follow at a review.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
That's my experience. Huge development costs on bespoke software, e.g. online platforms. Not sure any of that is a saleable asset though.
From having spent many years working on such code - 99% of bank code has zero value to another bank. Unsaleable.
The actual pricing algorithms etc might have some value* - but that is a tiny portion of the code base.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Yes, that's possible. If so, then I think it's very naïve.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Unlikely. It's probably just an easy way for EU banks to show higher capital ratios than the reality.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Which will be fine, until some new ‘disruptive’ fintech goes bust, and either the customers are SOL or the central bank has to bail them out.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Which will be fine, until some new ‘disruptive’ fintech goes bust, and either the customers are SOL or the central bank has to bail them out.
+1 - let's hope not, as the last disruptive German fintech company worked so well...
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Yes, that's possible. If so, then I think it's very naïve.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Which will be fine, until some new ‘disruptive’ fintech goes bust, and either the customers are SOL or the central bank has to bail them out.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Which will be fine, until some new ‘disruptive’ fintech goes bust, and either the customers are SOL or the central bank has to bail them out.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
The assumption is that everyone has been asked. Rather than "We have 10 shots going - who wants them?"... So, the "spare" shots have found a home, but *maybe* there haven't been enough "spare" shots for all the frontline staff, yet.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
That's my experience. Huge development costs on bespoke software, e.g. online platforms. Not sure any of that is a saleable asset though.
From having spent many years working on such code - 99% of bank code has zero value to another bank. Unsaleable.
The actual pricing algorithms etc might have some value* - but that is a tiny portion of the code base.
*LOL....
Tbf, some of the stuff I've seen created has little value to the bank that created it.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
No, the idea is that it's a saleable asset which will achieve near book value, obviously it's bullshit because bank software is highly customised and what works for one won't be compatible for a different one so the realised value of software will be close to zero.
Not sure I understand software as a saleable asset. Can I sell my Windows licence to my mate?
That's not really how regulatory capital measurement works. There are all sorts of different balance sheet items that can be included within the net assets (allowable for reg purposes) calculation. They don't need to be saleable, per se; they just need to fit into certain 'loss absorbing' criteria.
It's a good case of how being able to regulate based on the more sophisticated understanding that London has should be a good thing. It doesn't need to result in a lower capital requirement (a lot of capital requirements will be driven by the rating agencies anyway), but as long as it's simpler, more transparent and easier for investors to understand it will be a positive factor.
(Please, please, let them go after Solvency II and MIFID next....)
They already have (the latter) - LiS thresholds have been lowered for dark pool trading in the UK. Not to say that ESMA won't follow at a review.
Looking at MIFID - even wikipedia seems to be confused - originally published 14 years after it came into force.
Directive 2014/65/EU Directive 2014/65/EU is a legal act of the European Union. Together with Regulation No 600/2014 it provides a legal framework for securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. Wikipedia Originally published: 3 January 2018 Came into force: 30 April 2004 Date made: 15 May 2014
Separately I've heard talk of Basel III being removed - anyone heard anything about that?
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Unlikely. It's probably just an easy way for EU banks to show higher capital ratios than the reality.
It comes down to the definition of "realisable asset" - a pile of gold can be turned into money in seconds. A pile of badly written custom Murex interfacing software......
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
The assumption is that everyone has been asked. Rather than "We have 10 shots going - who wants them?"... So, the "spare" shots have found a home, but *maybe* there haven't been enough "spare" shots for all the frontline staff, yet.
The differential rates are, of course, worrying.
The original quote was that they had all been offered a jab.
Yes, the figures for minorities are disturbing, there must be more to it than just social media disinformation.
Buried deep in the rolling feed on the BBC world news web page:
The EU has approved vaccine exports to 21 non-EU countries this month, including the US, UK and China - despite continuing vaccine shortages in the EU, German broadcaster ARD reports. The vaccine delays have caused anger in much of Europe, where far fewer people have had the jab than in the UK and US.
The EU is almost certainly because in spite of their bluster they found they had no legal basis for preventing the export of vaccines agreed under pre-existing contracts.
The BBC probably because like many news items it is not current/immediate nor does it come directly from BBC journalists. Such items often find themselves consigned to more obscure places on the website.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
It is bizarre - the most dangerous place imaginable. There will be many patients in hospitals, or attending, whose condition precludes the vaccination - making them even more vulnerable. Meanwhile many of the staff responsible for their treatment and service could be infecting them. Presumably in a litigious society the individual or hospital could be sued.
I suspect that is something that both me and Sandpit would agree is a really is a bad idea by the EU - to use software (which is at best of transitory value) as the basis of a bank's capital is utterly insane and that's before they start gaming the systems.
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
On the face of it, sounds utterly bonkers. If there is a run on the bank they are going to hand out licences to their software instead of cash?
Don’t be daft. Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
How can you even sell the software? You can't sell the licenses for the software infrastructure of your bank, you need them in order to function. Why would you even have a large amount of unuseds software licenses?
Banks have a lot of internal custom "software" that has very high value internally and requires a lot of investment. It's not about third party licences.
That's my experience. Huge development costs on bespoke software, e.g. online platforms. Not sure any of that is a saleable asset though.
From having spent many years working on such code - 99% of bank code has zero value to another bank. Unsaleable.
The actual pricing algorithms etc might have some value* - but that is a tiny portion of the code base.
*LOL....
Tbf, some of the stuff I've seen created has little value to the bank that created it.
Did anyone think the BoE or FCA wouldn't take existing EU regulations, then triple them, gilt-edge them and present them as the new normal?
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Be that as it may, this decision by the BoE is a no-brainer. What the hell does the European Banking Authority think it is doing? If they want to reduce the capital banks have to hold, they should do so, not allow them to fake up capital which doesn't exist....
Is it possibly a tactic to make their jurisdiction more attractive to fintech companies ? Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Unlikely. It's probably just an easy way for EU banks to show higher capital ratios than the reality.
It comes down to the definition of "realisable asset" - a pile of gold can be turned into money in seconds. A pile of badly written custom Murex interfacing software......
Agreed, which is why the BoE removing it from the list is the right thing to do.
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
Very well said.
Though LOL I find it very amusing some bitter and twisted individual has marked your post and mine you replied to as Off Topic. I wonder if that sad, twisted individual even read the thread header since it's quite literally on topic.
Imagine being such a partisan hack that you are irritated that a vaccine that will save the world has been developed with our support.
Just joined and way behind the thread but do please make some allowance for the possibility that your sad, twisted individual may simply have fat finger syndrome. On my smartphone it's only too easy to hit one of those active spots without knowing you've done it.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
It is bizarre - the most dangerous place imaginable. There will be many patients in hospitals, or attending, whose condition precludes the vaccination - making them even more vulnerable. Meanwhile many of the staff responsible for their treatment and service could be infecting them. Presumably in a litigious society the individual or hospital could be sued.
While I am firmly convinced schools are a lot more dangerous than the DfE pretends, they are nevertheless an order of magnitude safer than hospitals.
And yet, if you offered me the vaccine right now on condition I let myself be buggered by an enraged rhinoceros first, I would at this minute be dropping my pants and bending over.
I cannot understand such people. And I have to say I’d feel pretty uneasy about being treated by somebody who refused a Covid vaccine unless there was a good health reason attached (e.g. if they were pregnant).
In other news, which may have even longer term ramifications than Covid, Edexcel have launched a consultation on scrapping their GCSE offer.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
I wonder if the logic goes - as I had Covid last year there is little point having the vaccine
Except, I believe, there is scientific evidence that the vaccines produce a deeper and broader immunity to COVID than having the disease does.
In which case it needs to be explained it better.. After all I seem to remember Foxy commenting in the past that some groups of staff were far more seriously impacted by Covid than others.
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
Very well said.
Though LOL I find it very amusing some bitter and twisted individual has marked your post and mine you replied to as Off Topic. I wonder if that sad, twisted individual even read the thread header since it's quite literally on topic.
Imagine being such a partisan hack that you are irritated that a vaccine that will save the world has been developed with our support.
Just joined and way behind the thread but do please make some allowance for the possibility that your sad, twisted individual may simply have fat finger syndrome. On my smartphone it's only too easy to hit one of those active spots without knowing you've done it.
Good afternoon, everyone.
You do know you can delete the off-topic hit just by tapping again?
CNN: By [last May], the British government had one of the highest national death tolls globally, having dragged its feet to impose lockdown restrictions, shown reluctance to enforce rules and following futile attempts to track and trace the spread of the virus. Its border was also still wide open, and the government was throwing money at a rotating cast of private sector consultants to secure basic personal protective equipment (PPE) -- an effort that appeared more successful at generating controversy than securing supplies.
But the government's foresight in backing coronavirus vaccines has turned into one of the most surprising success stories of the pandemic.
The centralized NHS is key to getting shots in arms, but it was an early series of big bets on then-unproven vaccines that really vaulted the UK ahead of the global pack. Cautious not to repeat its PPE-purchasing mistakes and unwilling to rely solely on public servants who lacked expertise in vaccine procurement, Britain's Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance pushed Downing Street to bring in outside experts to form the vaccine taskforce.
[Health professor] McKee believes the UK's success is also due to the well-organized and centralized NHS system, giving the country an advantage many other countries lack.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
The assumption is that everyone has been asked. Rather than "We have 10 shots going - who wants them?"... So, the "spare" shots have found a home, but *maybe* there haven't been enough "spare" shots for all the frontline staff, yet.
The differential rates are, of course, worrying.
The original quote was that they had all been offered a jab.
Yes, the figures for minorities are disturbing, there must be more to it than just social media disinformation.
The memes being put on social media are regurgitations of things that have been in circulation for a long, long time.
For example - "X contains pig products and will defile you"... that's a meme that have been out there for 150 years+
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
It is bizarre - the most dangerous place imaginable. There will be many patients in hospitals, or attending, whose condition precludes the vaccination - making them even more vulnerable. Meanwhile many of the staff responsible for their treatment and service could be infecting them. Presumably in a litigious society the individual or hospital could be sued.
While I am firmly convinced schools are a lot more dangerous than the DfE pretends, they are nevertheless an order of magnitude safer than hospitals.
And yet, if you offered me the vaccine right now on condition I let myself be buggered by an enraged rhinoceros first, I would at this minute be dropping my pants and bending over.
I cannot understand such people. And I have to say I’d feel pretty uneasy about being treated by somebody who refused a Covid vaccine unless there was a good health reason attached (e.g. if they were pregnant).
In other news, which may have even longer term ramifications than Covid, Edexcel have launched a consultation on scrapping their GCSE offer.
"And yet, if you offered me the vaccine right now on condition I let myself be buggered by an enraged rhinoceros first, I would at this minute be dropping my pants and bending over."
That is some rage! We always thought you had it in you.....
CNN: By [last May], the British government had one of the highest national death tolls globally, having dragged its feet to impose lockdown restrictions, shown reluctance to enforce rules and following futile attempts to track and trace the spread of the virus. Its border was also still wide open, and the government was throwing money at a rotating cast of private sector consultants to secure basic personal protective equipment (PPE) -- an effort that appeared more successful at generating controversy than securing supplies.
But the government's foresight in backing coronavirus vaccines has turned into one of the most surprising success stories of the pandemic.
The centralized NHS is key to getting shots in arms, but it was an early series of big bets on then-unproven vaccines that really vaulted the UK ahead of the global pack. Cautious not to repeat its PPE-purchasing mistakes and unwilling to rely solely on public servants who lacked expertise in vaccine procurement, Britain's Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance pushed Downing Street to bring in outside experts to form the vaccine taskforce.
[Health professor] McKee believes the UK's success is also due to the well-organized and centralized NHS system, giving the country an advantage many other countries lack.
The NHS has done this part well - but there are plenty of other EU nations with equally well-organised health systems. The problem was, and is, an appalling lack of supply.
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
The only remaining question is what can humanity do to show its gratitude? The Nobel Prize is, presumably, already in the bag, though Boris might regard that as a bit tainted after that lightweight Obama got it. Could we do a Mount Rushmore and have Boris's face engraved on the side of Ben Nevis? Biden could definitely make a gesture, and atone for that Churchill impertinence, by naming a distract in New York, the city of Boris's birth, which will soon be imbued with Bethlehem-like significance for many, as Boris District. That would be a small but significant start.
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
Very well said.
Though LOL I find it very amusing some bitter and twisted individual has marked your post and mine you replied to as Off Topic. I wonder if that sad, twisted individual even read the thread header since it's quite literally on topic.
Imagine being such a partisan hack that you are irritated that a vaccine that will save the world has been developed with our support.
Just joined and way behind the thread but do please make some allowance for the possibility that your sad, twisted individual may simply have fat finger syndrome. On my smartphone it's only too easy to hit one of those active spots without knowing you've done it.
Good afternoon, everyone.
You do know you can delete the off-topic hit just by tapping again?
Or indeed, a like.
Thank you; yes, I do. However using the remedy depends on knowing you've made the mistake.
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
The only remaining question is what can humanity do to show its gratitude? The Nobel Prize is, presumably, already in the bag, though Boris might regard that as a bit tainted after that lightweight Obama got it. Could we do a Mount Rushmore and have Boris's face engraved on the side of Ben Nevis? Biden could definitely make a gesture, and atone for that Churchill impertinence, by naming a distract in New York, the city of Boris's birth, which will soon be imbued with Bethlehem-like significance for many, as Boris District. That would be a small but significant start.
Surely Fort William is ugly enough already without taking away one of its two really beautiful natural features?
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
I must say I find this incredible. Even the 70.9% figure seems far too low.
I think to solution is not direct compulsion but indirect incentivisation via visa passports for travel and other leisure activities, supported by ongoing education of course.
I'm thinking that there needs to be a carrot and stick. Let it be known that down the line, vaccination is going to be a requirement to do a whole raft of types of work in the NHS. Not yet, but soon - and no exceptions.
However, I would also have a specialist scheme for NHS (and other public service) workers, whereby they get a 20% contribution towards a holiday taken in the UK this year (up to a cap of say £500) - reclaimed from the Govt., but only if they can show they have been jabbed.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
The assumption is that everyone has been asked. Rather than "We have 10 shots going - who wants them?"... So, the "spare" shots have found a home, but *maybe* there haven't been enough "spare" shots for all the frontline staff, yet.
The differential rates are, of course, worrying.
The original quote was that they had all been offered a jab.
Yes, the figures for minorities are disturbing, there must be more to it than just social media disinformation.
The memes being put on social media are regurgitations of things that have been in circulation for a long, long time.
For example - "X contains pig products and will defile you"... that's a meme that have been out there for 150 years+
They need to step up the marketing then.
The highest vaccination rates in the world so far, are from a Jewish country and a Muslim country, where people have been told unequivocally by religious leaders to get vaccinated as a matter of public health and safety.
The BME MPs did a good video the other week, need to see more of that from well-known and respected members of all minorities.
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
The only remaining question is what can humanity do to show its gratitude? The Nobel Prize is, presumably, already in the bag, though Boris might regard that as a bit tainted after that lightweight Obama got it. Could we do a Mount Rushmore and have Boris's face engraved on the side of Ben Nevis? Biden could definitely make a gesture, and atone for that Churchill impertinence, by naming a distract in New York, the city of Boris's birth, which will soon be imbued with Bethlehem-like significance for many, as Boris District. That would be a small but significant start.
Surely Fort William is ugly enough already without taking away one of its two really beautiful natural features?
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
The only remaining question is what can humanity do to show its gratitude? The Nobel Prize is, presumably, already in the bag, though Boris might regard that as a bit tainted after that lightweight Obama got it. Could we do a Mount Rushmore and have Boris's face engraved on the side of Ben Nevis? Biden could definitely make a gesture, and atone for that Churchill impertinence, by naming a distract in New York, the city of Boris's birth, which will soon be imbued with Bethlehem-like significance for many, as Boris District. That would be a small but significant start.
Surely Fort William is ugly enough already without taking away one of its two really beautiful natural features?
The Scots would flock to it though.
Why? Were you planning to put a urinal somewhere near the top so they could piss all over him?
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
How the hell are so many people *who work in hospitals* unwilling to get vaccinated?
The assumption is that everyone has been asked. Rather than "We have 10 shots going - who wants them?"... So, the "spare" shots have found a home, but *maybe* there haven't been enough "spare" shots for all the frontline staff, yet.
The differential rates are, of course, worrying.
The original quote was that they had all been offered a jab.
Yes, the figures for minorities are disturbing, there must be more to it than just social media disinformation.
The memes being put on social media are regurgitations of things that have been in circulation for a long, long time.
For example - "X contains pig products and will defile you"... that's a meme that have been out there for 150 years+
They need to step up the marketing then.
The highest vaccination rates in the world so far, are from a Jewish country and a Muslim country, where people have been told unequivocally by religious leaders to get vaccinated as a matter of public health and safety.
The BME MPs did a good video the other week, need to see more of that from well-known and respected members of all minorities.
The problem is that there seems to be a fear of mentioning the actual anti-vax memes.
Which results in a message that sounds like - "That thing I am not mentioning. Isn't true".
The world is lucky that the UK and USA backed the experimental vaccines. Had we all done what Europe have done we'd still be waiting.
Amusing that Brown claimed to have saved the world, but in one way Johnson has actually done so.
He has.
The Left would love to have us believe it's all because of the NHS.
Clearly there are a LOT of players in this from the UK side who deserve credit. Kate Bingham was instrumental from a business background: the kind of ball-busting no nonsense spending of public money like a risk investor that got the job done. The contrast there with the EU should make europhiles weep and weep. Others too played key roles, from Matt Hancock, the scientists (of course!), the MHRA who worked on data in line, unlike the EU who stupidly waited to assess it when it was all in at the end, to Steve Bates, Patrick Vallance etc.
But behind it all is Boris Johnson. Whether by serendipity or foresight he has overseen this country's most important success since the Second World War.
The previous fastest ever vaccine development was 4 years. This one took 9 months and the UK led the world in the rollout.
It's a stunning success story. I know the Boris haters loathe to be told the truth but they will have to simply face up to the fact, as have I. On this Boris has been brilliant.
Very well said.
Though LOL I find it very amusing some bitter and twisted individual has marked your post and mine you replied to as Off Topic. I wonder if that sad, twisted individual even read the thread header since it's quite literally on topic.
Imagine being such a partisan hack that you are irritated that a vaccine that will save the world has been developed with our support.
Just joined and way behind the thread but do please make some allowance for the possibility that your sad, twisted individual may simply have fat finger syndrome. On my smartphone it's only too easy to hit one of those active spots without knowing you've done it.
Good afternoon, everyone.
If its just the one sure its entirely possible to do it by accident, though if you see it you can remove it.
When someone flags as off topic all the posts of a certain PoV in a conversation its just petulant and silly. Unlikely to be a series of coincidental accidents when a train of thought in multiple messages are simultaneously flagged.
I hadn't realised but the second jab programme starts properly from next week. It's going to be a big challenge to ramp up second doses and maintain first doses at around 450k per day over the next 3-4 weeks. If we manage it then those fully vaccinated numbers are going to follow the first dose numbers upwards very quickly.
I think the next argument will be "well AZ is a fake vaccine so it doesn't count" or something like that and the detractors will try and exclude those numbers from the total.
Comments
EDIT, The Queen of course has no problem riding in a Range Rover
https://twitter.com/spencer68/status/1361278599618301953?s=20
JLR to “substantially reduce and rationalise” non-manufacturing jobs
Castle Bromwich factory to only produce run out existing models (so closes by 2025)
As I said in March, if you have a daily 5pm press conference with the PM, CMO and CSO about steeplechasing it would be banned within days. Of course steeplechasing is not infectious and hence the save lives/protect the NHS aim is a very sensible one. But the aim is not to eradicate Covid, nor save fit people from spending two weeks in bed.
Signed
Your Stevie
Obviously with a view to remaining rule-setters in Europe as and when negotiations develop.
Can't stay for your reply I am afraid. Need to get some lunch and then do some work to work out how I can exploit the opportunity that is the brave new world of Brexit Britain. Heil Johnson!
I can see why a bank would love the idea but it's utterly insane and should never be allowed.
Johnson should get a Toyota Century. It looks the part, is RHD and fits with his global Britain nonsense.
The whole lot will be done by midsummer, absent unknown-as-yet problems.
The Manhattan Project was of a different order, though.
For the vaccines, we were basically giving a lot of money to companies to do what we already knew they could do, but quicker, with a fair prospect of success (new vaccines have a far better record of trial success than any other type of pharmaceutical).
For the bomb, we were taking a leap into the scientific unknown, with utterly uncertain results, and in the process had to create new manufacturing industries and techniques from scratch.
For example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Engineer_Works
In contract to that, look at this article on the supply chain for the mRNA vaccines. Quite a lot of that is off the (very specialised) shelf.
https://blog.jonasneubert.com/2021/01/10/exploring-the-supply-chain-of-the-pfizer-biontech-and-moderna-covid-19-vaccines/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55045639
March - Schools
April - Retail and Outdoor Dining
May - Indoor Dining w/ Restrictions
June - “Back to normal”
In practice I’d imagine face-masks will continue as mandatory for quite some time.
I also don’t really expect to see foreign travel resume until mid summer earliest (with the help of vaccine passports).
I can see only one thing wrong with what the BoE is doing: they shouldn't be wasting time on a consultation. There's nothing to consult about.
Sell the software...to another bank...who is...er...facing a the same, systemic, credit crunch...um.
Why is it only people in IT see it for what it really is an unavoidable cost that could instantly be worthless.
We should be told !
https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1361105516739645445?s=20
I hope to heck they've got decent ventilation.....
I think we will be towards fully open 3 weeks after all adult vaccinations are done.
The other way is from the wrong end.
It’s a wankery of incels.
At times.
Hah.
The bank will already have working software for everything they do - why would they want a replacement (equally legacy) system?
BBC News - Covid: Blackburn mayor fined over wedding gathering breach
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-56067907
However most large vendors have moved towards annual fees rather than upfront fees.
Assuming 80% take-up (42.2m) both shots would be completed by 23/07/21.
Of course the vaccination rate will increase considerably over then next two months.
The analysis looked at 19,044 workers at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust who had all been offered jabs since mid-December.
It found 70.9% of white staff had come forward, compared with 58.5% of South Asian staff and 36.8% of black staff.
Seems unlikely, but the only vaguely credible thing I can come up with.
Software has a value - a company couldn't survive without it but that doesn't mean the software has any value for anyone else...
It's a good case of how being able to regulate based on the more sophisticated understanding that London has should be a good thing. It doesn't need to result in a lower capital requirement (a lot of capital requirements will be driven by the rating agencies anyway), but as long as it's simpler, more transparent and easier for investors to understand it will be a positive factor.
(Please, please, let them go after Solvency II and MIFID next....)
I think to solution is not direct complusion but indirect incentivisation via visa passports for travel and other leisure activities, supported by ongoing education of course.
The actual pricing algorithms etc might have some value* - but that is a tiny portion of the code base.
*LOL....
The differential rates are, of course, worrying.
Directive 2014/65/EU
Directive 2014/65/EU is a legal act of the European Union. Together with Regulation No 600/2014 it provides a legal framework for securities markets, investment intermediaries and trading venues. Wikipedia
Originally published: 3 January 2018
Came into force: 30 April 2004
Date made: 15 May 2014
Separately I've heard talk of Basel III being removed - anyone heard anything about that?
https://twitter.com/VirusWhisperer/status/1360991304134631427
Yes, the figures for minorities are disturbing, there must be more to it than just social media disinformation.
The EU is almost certainly because in spite of their bluster they found they had no legal basis for preventing the export of vaccines agreed under pre-existing contracts.
The BBC probably because like many news items it is not current/immediate nor does it come directly from BBC journalists. Such items often find themselves consigned to more obscure places on the website.
Good afternoon, everyone.
And yet, if you offered me the vaccine right now on condition I let myself be buggered by an enraged rhinoceros first, I would at this minute be dropping my pants and bending over.
I cannot understand such people. And I have to say I’d feel pretty uneasy about being treated by somebody who refused a Covid vaccine unless there was a good health reason attached (e.g. if they were pregnant).
In other news, which may have even longer term ramifications than Covid, Edexcel have launched a consultation on scrapping their GCSE offer.
https://www.tes.com/news/gcses-exam-boards-14-19-qualifications-re-think
Or indeed, a like.
But the government's foresight in backing coronavirus vaccines has turned into one of the most surprising success stories of the pandemic.
The centralized NHS is key to getting shots in arms, but it was an early series of big bets on then-unproven vaccines that really vaulted the UK ahead of the global pack. Cautious not to repeat its PPE-purchasing mistakes and unwilling to rely solely on public servants who lacked expertise in vaccine procurement, Britain's Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance pushed Downing Street to bring in outside experts to form the vaccine taskforce.
[Health professor] McKee believes the UK's success is also due to the well-organized and centralized NHS system, giving the country an advantage many other countries lack.
For example - "X contains pig products and will defile you"... that's a meme that have been out there for 150 years+
That is some rage! We always thought you had it in you.....
However, I would also have a specialist scheme for NHS (and other public service) workers, whereby they get a 20% contribution towards a holiday taken in the UK this year (up to a cap of say £500) - reclaimed from the Govt., but only if they can show they have been jabbed.
The highest vaccination rates in the world so far, are from a Jewish country and a Muslim country, where people have been told unequivocally by religious leaders to get vaccinated as a matter of public health and safety.
The BME MPs did a good video the other week, need to see more of that from well-known and respected members of all minorities.
Which results in a message that sounds like - "That thing I am not mentioning. Isn't true".
When someone flags as off topic all the posts of a certain PoV in a conversation its just petulant and silly. Unlikely to be a series of coincidental accidents when a train of thought in multiple messages are simultaneously flagged.
I think the next argument will be "well AZ is a fake vaccine so it doesn't count" or something like that and the detractors will try and exclude those numbers from the total.