Interestingly, outside of the UK, the countries with the highest number of au pairs (Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden) are also the countries with the highest levels of female workplace participation.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller sure. I can live with that, if it applies equally to all.
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
This is the second big drugs bust in past days. I wonder if this is still fall out from all the info gained from the authorities hacking into Encrochat.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller ... fine.
But, not if minimum wage laws are broken. And not if tax laws are broken.
The point is that the au pair is not receiving a wage, it is claimed that (s)he is receiving "pocket money" and "free board & lodging" -- and with this sleight of hand, with this verbal legerdemain, all the usual laws on employment and tax can be avoided by the host family.
I am objecting to the violations of minimum wage and tax law.
(I object to skiers because there is enough sadness in the world without people fixing planks to their feet).
I must admit the sheen has worn off the SNP from this Englishman's perspective.
What about the sheen in Scotland? For once some internal ructions are making their way into the light, makes them a bit more like a normal party (albeit on a particularly emotive set of issues), but Sturgeon at least still seems to be pretty bulletproof. Don't know if others in the party are getting more damaged though.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller sure. I can live with that, if it applies equally to all.
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
If you read the definition of au pair on the government website, it's very specific: learning a language, cultural exchange, living with and eating meals with the family.
The idea - and this not a British one - is that a young person lives in a foreign country (usually on a gap year) to learn a language and get some experience of being abroad. They are specifically not paid employees.
Ultimately, are they regularly oppressed? If they are, why do large numbers of them still want to travel to the UK and other countries from other rich nations? I guess there might be some global Google coverup. Or it may be that most au pairs, and most people who have au pairs, benefit from the arrangement.
I must admit the sheen has worn off the SNP from this Englishman's perspective.
What about the sheen in Scotland? For once some internal ructions are making their way into the light, makes them a bit more like a normal party (albeit on a particularly emotive set of issues), but Sturgeon at least still seems to be pretty bulletproof. Don't know if others in the party are getting more damaged though.
If Salmond had been a somewhat lesser character then there's not a chance this'd be happening. That's not a good thing.
Yes. She is meant to bat it away and say That's not relevant to Covid.
Instead she spent quite some time attacking her enemy Salmond.
Scotland is in a right old mess.
It's been quite surreal how the demise of Trump has left an extranormative void whose gravitic pull previously 'sensible' politicians have been unable to resist. Spreading dangerous and unscientific nonsense about covid treatments for political ends? No problem, Macron's here. Throwing your toys out of the pram on the world stage because contract law and international agreements are inconvenient for you? Why hello there, Madame von der Leyen. Pushing the limits of your position to go after a political opponent or rival? Step right this way, Ms. Sturgeon...
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused!
Er, no, it's the French people who are refusing AZ (like the Germans) because their President told them it was "useless"
Though how could deliveries to France in Q2 have prevented a Q1 wave? We told them we were first in the queue and they would have to wait.
I suspect that AZN is reasonably effective, as indeed are Sputnik and Sinopharm, though the evidence published for these is also pretty poor.
We now have the real life data from Scotland, of many thousands vaxxed by AZ, and it looks pretty damn good.
As for your other point, why on earth should the UK have donated precious AZ vaccines to France when the French president falsely states that these same vaccines are "quasi-ineffective", thus frightening the life out of everyone who has taken it?
As the French say: Fuck That
I think we should be generous and donate our vaccines to whoever needs them, once weve finished vaccinating most of our own population, which will be very soon hopefully.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller sure. I can live with that, if it applies equally to all.
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
If you read the definition of au pair on the government website, it's very specific: learning a language, cultural exchange, living with and eating meals with the family.
The idea - and this not a British one - is that a young person lives in a foreign country (usually on a gap year) to learn a language and get some experience of being abroad. They are specifically not paid employees.
Ultimately, are they regularly oppressed? If they are, why do large numbers of them still want to travel to the UK and other countries from other rich nations? I guess there might be some global Google coverup. Or it may be that most au pairs, and most people who have au pairs, benefit from the arrangement.
Which is all fine - so long as they are actually affiliated with an educational institution and paid minimum wage for any childcare work.
Yes. She is meant to bat it away and say That's not relevant to Covid.
Instead she spent quite some time attacking her enemy Salmond.
Scotland is in a right old mess.
It's been quite surreal how the demise of Trump has left an extranormative void whose gravitic pull previously 'sensible' politicians have been unable to resist. Spreading dangerous and unscientific nonsense about covid treatments for political ends? No problem, Macron's here. Throwing your toys out of the pram on the world stage because contract law and international agreements are inconvenient for you? Why hello there, Madame von der Leyen. Pushing the limits of your position to go after a political opponent or rival? Step right this way, Ms. Sturgeon...
Tories have no high ground on the propriety of contracts at the mo.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller sure. I can live with that, if it applies equally to all.
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
If you read the definition of au pair on the government website, it's very specific: learning a language, cultural exchange, living with and eating meals with the family.
The idea - and this not a British one - is that a young person lives in a foreign country (usually on a gap year) to learn a language and get some experience of being abroad. They are specifically not paid employees.
Ultimately, are they regularly oppressed? If they are, why do large numbers of them still want to travel to the UK and other countries from other rich nations? I guess there might be some global Google coverup. Or it may be that most au pairs, and most people who have au pairs, benefit from the arrangement.
In the early twentieth century, domestic service was very common, and many young people from poor families travelled to become domestic servants. According to your argument, they were not oppressed because "large numbers of them" did it.
No-one is objecting in to families having au pairs. We just want the same employment law/tax law for nannies to apply to au pairs.
It is a middle-class scam calling the wage "pocket-money" to avoid tax.
A vulnerable man accused of racially harassing Tommy Robinson has been cleared after it emerged the former English Defence League leader had lied to police.
Muhammad Abdul Basir, 24, had been due to go on trial at the Old Bailey trial next month accused of uploading videos to YouTube that caused Mr Robinson - real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to fear for his safety.
The far-right activist had claimed he had been so worried about the content of the clips that he had been forced to remove his children from school.
But when police checked the claims with the school they discovered he had been lying.
Mr Yaxley-Lennon also made false claims about having received official warnings about threats to his safety.
At a pre-trial hearing at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, the Crown offered no evidence and Mr Basir, who was described as having mental health problems, was formally acquitted.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Yes. She is meant to bat it away and say That's not relevant to Covid.
Instead she spent quite some time attacking her enemy Salmond.
Scotland is in a right old mess.
It's been quite surreal how the demise of Trump has left an extranormative void whose gravitic pull previously 'sensible' politicians have been unable to resist. Spreading dangerous and unscientific nonsense about covid treatments for political ends? No problem, Macron's here. Throwing your toys out of the pram on the world stage because contract law and international agreements are inconvenient for you? Why hello there, Madame von der Leyen. Pushing the limits of your position to go after a political opponent or rival? Step right this way, Ms. Sturgeon...
Tories have no high ground on the propriety of contracts at the mo.
But you never thought they did in the first place, so what does it matter? Now the left/liberal luminaries of the UK nations, the EU hierarchy, and the major European governments are revealing themselves to be as deeply flawed as The Donald himself. And that's really quite shocking.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
That's the cleft stick that the Johnson Government has trapped itself in.
There is an honest platform for letting people respond freely to incentives, the government butting out and all that. I've got quite a lot sympathy for it. In his heart of hearts, I suspect that the PM does as well.
But it's a 10% in a good year platform. Look at the German FDP, maybe Spanish C's, maybe the circulation of The Economist.
It's not a... plucking a number out of the air... 52%... platform. And that's the problem that has been denied, but hasn't gone away.
A vulnerable man accused of racially harassing Tommy Robinson has been cleared after it emerged the former English Defence League leader had lied to police.
Muhammad Abdul Basir, 24, had been due to go on trial at the Old Bailey trial next month accused of uploading videos to YouTube that caused Mr Robinson - real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to fear for his safety.
The far-right activist had claimed he had been so worried about the content of the clips that he had been forced to remove his children from school.
But when police checked the claims with the school they discovered he had been lying.
Mr Yaxley-Lennon also made false claims about having received official warnings about threats to his safety.
At a pre-trial hearing at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, the Crown offered no evidence and Mr Basir, who was described as having mental health problems, was formally acquitted.
Given how long it can take for things to go to trial, it seems pretty astonishing that they didn't, I don't know, check whether he was telling the truth well before now, before deciding there was enough to evidence to schedule a trial.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller sure. I can live with that, if it applies equally to all.
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
If you read the definition of au pair on the government website, it's very specific: learning a language, cultural exchange, living with and eating meals with the family.
The idea - and this not a British one - is that a young person lives in a foreign country (usually on a gap year) to learn a language and get some experience of being abroad. They are specifically not paid employees.
Ultimately, are they regularly oppressed? If they are, why do large numbers of them still want to travel to the UK and other countries from other rich nations? I guess there might be some global Google coverup. Or it may be that most au pairs, and most people who have au pairs, benefit from the arrangement.
Again if they're here studying then they'll have a visa, won't they?
So what's the issue. Unless you were talking instead about an employee rather than student learning in which case employment laws apply.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
They know what will be said of the prospect of a referendum if the SNP fail (even if with the Greens they manage). Boris has no reason to say yes regardless of the outcome, but others may change tune, and of course there's so much more hassle that can be undertaken if they succeed.
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
All is says 'a lot' about is you.
Does it? I also could name some Oasis songs but no Blur songs. I presume they must have been more popular (though I have at least heard of Blur, so they were probably pretty big too). And while greater popularity doesn't necessarily mean better quality, it's not as though less means better quality either.
That would mean (realistically) the Tories, Labour or some slate of independents (if they counted) taking the largest party off the SNP. Or the SNP has become so foully corrupt, it ceases to exist. Basically, Nicola with a baby on the barbie. And the senior members of the party all tucking in. I just can't see how it comes about in a couple of months.
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
Might not someone less awful manage to make it to the final 2? It's not as though Macron would have been an obvious pick well out from last time. Heck, people have suggested Barnier.
Regardless, Macron might have been an ok president as things go, and remain a better alternative than the most likely opponent in the top 2, but even if accepting that there's no reason not to bash for things that deserve bashing. That route is where politicians get us to excuse all their failings because the other guy is worse.
Nothing bring on collective pb.com heartbreak more than the prospect of ... no more au pairs.
It is exploitative. Au pairs have little or no legal protection.
It is a tax avoidance, as the employer has no legal obligation to pay tax/employee benefits. (This is unlike the case of nanny, for which an employment contract exists and for which the host family has the usual obligations of an employer including paying NI.)
It is a hugely destructive relationship, in which the au pair suffers from excessive workload, the guilt of the absent mother and the sexual advances of the father (see TSE's gauche post about "a certain genre of movies")
It is the preserve of ugly, grasping middle-class people who want childcare on the cheap. The au pair is usually too young to realise that she is being exploited.
If Brexit has put a stop to it, then that is truly excellent. Well done, Brexit.
I've had no experience of au pairs, but I'd very much doubt any of them would describe themselves as "exploited". Usually they're getting kids off to school in the morning, picking them up in the evening, and getting to hang out in the UK and learn English.
"I've now been here 7 weeks and I still feel overwhelmed by the workload. So 2 weeks ago I started writing down the work I did each day and how long I actually worked, and it was far beyond the 30 hours we agreed on. The first week was 47 hours, and this week was 57 hours, as the mom had me babysitting 3 nights and go to an event at the school that she should have attended, but she didn't as she needed relaxing time and had left for an airbnb and the father lives in another country 5 days a week."
Also, I have no objection to the employment of nannies because the host family has proper obligations as given in the contract and pays tax/NI.
Why should the employment of an au pair be different to other forms of employment?
Why is the host family exempt from the usual obligations (including tax, NI, entitlement to sick leave) of an employer?
It is a middle-class scam. Let us call it what it is.
Fortunately, mumsnet is completely representative.
And who gives a shit if it benefits the middle classes or not. This is a bit like your obsession with skiing: if the middle classes do it, it must be bad.
As a general rule, willing buyer, willing seller, the government shouldn't get involved. Unless there are large negative externalities, then really, why is the government stepping in?
Willing buyer, willing seller sure. I can live with that, if it applies equally to all.
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
If you read the definition of au pair on the government website, it's very specific: learning a language, cultural exchange, living with and eating meals with the family.
The idea - and this not a British one - is that a young person lives in a foreign country (usually on a gap year) to learn a language and get some experience of being abroad. They are specifically not paid employees.
Ultimately, are they regularly oppressed? If they are, why do large numbers of them still want to travel to the UK and other countries from other rich nations? I guess there might be some global Google coverup. Or it may be that most au pairs, and most people who have au pairs, benefit from the arrangement.
Again if they're here studying then they'll have a visa, won't they?
So what's the issue. Unless you were talking instead about an employee rather than student learning in which case employment laws apply.
Something which would have been really easy to disguise under EU FoM rules, as no visa was required.
In my part of the world, they’ve recently introduced a government agency which is the registered employer for all foreign domestic staff, after too many scandals around fake agencies, recruitment fees and mistreatment by employers. This story about au pairs seems awfully similar.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
If there's ever been a lesson to not have a politicised and unaccountable judicial branch, the experience in Scotland is surely it.
This isn't the judiciary, this is the chief prosecutor also being a member of the cabinet.
I think we'd be concerned if the DPP was a member of the UK PM's cabinet.
May have been awkward when Starmer decided to prosecute Huhne.
I see. That's also completely stupid. Surely you want the prosecutor to be completely free of political influence. Making the job part of the Cabinet seems to preclude that as they'll have responsibilities to the Cabinet and the leader that appointed them.
Although my mentor was head of the judiciary, a member of cabinet, speaker of the Lords and member of the Regency Council at the same time...
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
Good chance Barnier will run. Good chance he would win if he did.
Perversely could the Salmond/Sturgeon story combined with the Scots weird voting system help ensure a nationalist majority?
If nationalist voters vote SNP in the FPTP ballot but then vote Green in the list vote then might that not help ensure more nationalists get elected? Since the Greens are nationalists too and the voting system would see list votes for Greens get more elected due to them having not taken the FPTP seats?
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
All it says 'a lot' about, is you.
Ooh, this is fun - not had good Oasis v Blur album for 30 years!
I saw Oasis just after Supersonic came out. Their music was good, I suppose. But it was the most boring performance I had seen in my life up to that point. It was the first gig where I had ever been bored enough to go to the toilet. Whenever I revisit Definitely Maybe, I'm astonished how good it was. They did the opposite of most bands and released a greatest hits as their first album. There are only a couple of songs off 'What's the story' and nothing thereafter that can hold a candle to Definitely Maybe. After 1996, Oasis just did the same thing over and over again, less interestingly each time. It was a good thing to start with, admittedly. But their career lasted about ten years too long. Blur don't have an album which comes anywhere near Definitely Maybe. But they've reinvented themselves several times, and have been consistently interesting, and have a handful of songs which get better the more you listen to them. Oasis are more fun - a lot of the best bits of Blur are quite bleak - but overall I'd give it to Blur. Even though I'm a Mancunian. And live, Blur are far better.
I may be influenced by the fact that the Gallagher brothers are such utter pains in the arse.
And I agree that Pulp were even better. (Although a lot of Pulp is bleaker still.)
My era of choice though was baggy rather than Britpop - though I was only 15 in 1990 and slightly too young for it. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets, James, New Fast Automatic Daffodils, Northside, Charlatans...
Macron bashing is easy (fun too, in less tragic situations), not least because for once it has nothing really to do with the UK at all, despite attempts to make it so. We cannot blame some of our failures on the EU, the EU and its members cannot blame some of their failures on the UK.
I think before people bash Macron they ought to remember who his opponents were in the last French presidential election. Do we really want our nearest neighbour on the continent led by a Putin fan, white nationalist or borderline commie?
Good chance Barnier will run. Good chance he would win if he did.
Good luck to the Savoyard. A bit of class from the French wouldn't come amiss.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
No disrespect to anyone, but I very much doubt whether there have been any genuine changes in sexuality over the years. Its probably mostly down to what people feel they can say and think about it, both to others and themselves.
Actually, I'm not massively addicted. I've always thought he was very intelligent (used to hear him on The Moral Maze every now and again), but as a Minister I've not been convinced by him.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
Amazon will have the DVD second hand for a couple of quid, shirley. (If you're old school and still have such things)
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Labour and the LDs together, to be PB-pedantic, I think. I seem to recall Dewar and Wallace sniggering together about it, metaphorically but with a real sense of their collusion.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
Damn, just looked that up and discovered I'm a millennial! Does that mean I'm a snowflake? I'd always assumed I was generation X, that sounds cool
Yes. Gen X is the coolest generation. The decade that we dominated culture, the 90s, was the last decade where anything worthwhile was produced. We just weren't much good at cricket.
Oh God.
An Oasis-Blur apologist.
Any Gen Xer worth their salt knows that the answer to Oasis or Blur was, of course, Pulp.
Any impartial millennial will tell you that Oasis were clearly the best. I couldn't even name any Blur songs.
Oh, well they mustn't be any good then.
You don't have to take it personally. My point was that as someone who is quite "in to" music and not particularly sheltered, I can name tons of Oasis songs but very few, if any Blur songs. That says a lot in regards to legacy.
Quite. Though Oasis tend to evoke a particular period of time. Pulp still sound fresh and up to date to my ears at least.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They've had it sitting in fridges for a few weeks since the EMA authorisation. Unused. Going by the German numbers it will be around 1m doses.
View: Blur (especially Albarn) were stylistic bandwagon-chasers whereas Oasis were stuck in one specific set of influences on their music big enough to crowded out any eclectic tendencies - Beatles, dance culture and Liam's voice. Bringing in Pulp is a little unfair because they shifted so few units in comparison that you might as well go to Aphex or Massive Attack - you are going beyond the "pop scene" (sorry).
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Labour and the LDs together, to be PB-pedantic, I think. I seem to recall Dewar and Wallace sniggering together about it, metaphorically but with a real sense of their collusion.
Devolution was a terrible cowboy job by Labour (mainly), in almost every way. They tried to rig the parliament against the SNP. They didn't even attempt to answer the West Lothian Question. They gave Scots a halfway house on fiscal matters which causes resentment on both sides.
All their conniving and ineptitude has come back to haunt everyone in the UK - including the Scots, who now see their democracy soiled by this latest scandal.
Perversely could the Salmond/Sturgeon story combined with the Scots weird voting system help ensure a nationalist majority?
If nationalist voters vote SNP in the FPTP ballot but then vote Green in the list vote then might that not help ensure more nationalists get elected? Since the Greens are nationalists too and the voting system would see list votes for Greens get more elected due to them having not taken the FPTP seats?
My impressions is very much people are either going to suck it up and vote SNP on both ballots, or SNP on the constituency and then one of the smaller minor indy list parties that aren't the Greens.
At this stage there doesn't seem to be much desire to go the SNP-Green direction. But who knows for sure.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
Not sure whether October and December weren't the same thing really but yeah whatever it is third or fourth we should try and avoid it. Don't want that June date to get pushed back.
I suspect we will see a slight rise (or perhaps a slower decline) in cases in the next couple of weeks brought on by school half-term and the better weather with more people out and about.
That will ease as more people are vaccinated though again I would argue progress countrywide continues to be uneven and that may reflect in case numbers in the next month or so.
So the "push" of vaccination will encounter the "pull" of the return of schools and the accompanying social mixing. Could well mean more cases but fewer deaths and the downward trend in hospitalisations should continue.
From there, as vaccinations go further into the population, we should see continuing downward pressure on deaths, cases and hospitalisations. The next question will be how long the immunity from the current vaccinations will last - 6 months, 9 months? We should be looking to get a new round of vaccinations started as quickly as possible once it appears the immunity offered by the initial vaccinations wears off.
The timetable as published looks sensible, achievable and realistic. There are siren calls to reduce the gap between phases but, and I think Johnson has a point here, this has to be a road trodden for the last time. Vaccination and improved vaccines combined with general improvements in health and hygiene should enable us to live with Covid which has become the new dominant influenza virus and will likely be so for a couple of decades or until something "new" appears (as it will).
I think you’re right about the schools in the next few weeks but the fresh air should actually help if people are getting more ventilation and staying outdoors more. There’s some people suggesting tentative evidence that the cold snap in the second week of Feb contributed to the slowing of the rate of decline.
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Google has indexed Netflix and Amazon Prime, I think they're adding D+ as well.
Indeed but searching for a title often shows its available on Netflix, only to show it as Netflix USA rather than UK for instance.
Following someone (you?) recently saying that Prime Video is now on Sky Q, we've just been watching our first Amazon Prime TV series - Wentworth which is an Australian prison drama, from the sounds of it a bit of a modern remake of Prisoner Cell Block H which was before my time. Great series but then Season 6 ended and that was it, nothing left on Prime. Two more seasons are out but apparently if we want to watch those they have to be paid for separately which is very irritating. Searched Google to see if there was anywhere to watch season 7 - it suggested Netflix, but that's only Netflix in America it seems.
Not impressed with Prime over this, being asked to pay for final seasons, not sure how common that is with Prime. Netflix doesn't show all but a couple of seasons then try and sell you the last couple of seasons. Grr.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
Regarding yesterday's discussion on best films, what's the best way to access a given classic film?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
My way of finding out is first check
1) Sky Movies 2) Netflix 3) Amazon Prime 4) Disney+/Star 5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I wish there was a quick and easy way to find which service, if any, a title is on.
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Doesn't IMDb have a "how to watch it" button?
Amazon own IMDB so the persistently push the watch/buy/rent from Amazon Prime option when you can watch it for free with the likes of Netflix.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
It doesn't really matter (unless there's some advantage via positive discrimination), but in reality, I wonder how many men describing themselves as bi would, errr, do the deed.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
Only women can become pregnant, no?
Well. If you go into the right Gen Z part of the internet, this will be labelled transphobia and hate speech. But so would "ladies and gentlemen" - because it erases non-binary people from existence.
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
It doesn't really matter (unless there's some advantage via positive discrimination), but in reality, I wonder how many men describing themselves as bi would, errr, do the deed.
Depends what you mean by "the deed". Not all gay men actually do full anal sex, for example.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how I'd personally answer this poll. I've only ever been with and dated women but I'd be open to the possibility of being attracted to a particular man in the future. I guess I identify as "straight", but not 100%?
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
You're starting to embarrass yourself. Just let it go. Blame it on doctorly weariness. We will forgive.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
The contracts are the contracts. They booked in more than three after us, that's nothing to do with us refusing, its to do with their procurement.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
We refused what? Has the UK been banning exports to the EU or something?
No. Foxy has finally lost the plot.
He's had a very tough year. And has much useful perspective to add given that experience, and reason for caution on some choices made. But unless there's some detail missing here the UK simply wasn't involved in this issue other than having signed a contract sooner.
Of course, but my point is that if France couldn't get the AZN vaccine in time for whatever reason, then it couldn't prevent a new wave.
They have it now, and people are refusing to take it because of the bollocks spouted by Macron and others.
That is so, but having it now doesn't prevent a current wave. To have that effect they would have needed it in numbers a month or more ago.
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
What exactly did you mean when you said Except we refused! So Macron wasn't allowed to take them.
Allowed to take what?
The vaccines. We didn't let AZN alter the delivery of their contract, not that AZN particularly wanted to do so. I have no problem with that decision, but clearly Macron did at that time a month ago.
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
Your wording implies they had a right in the first place and the UK stopped them, which is completely misrepresenting what actually happened.
We refused an unreasonable request, as did AZN.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
If theyd taken our vaccine this might not have happened.
Except we refused!
Er, no, it's the French people who are refusing AZ (like the Germans) because their President told them it was "useless"
Though how could deliveries to France in Q2 have prevented a Q1 wave? We told them we were first in the queue and they would have to wait.
I suspect that AZN is reasonably effective, as indeed are Sputnik and Sinopharm, though the evidence published for these is also pretty poor.
That is a genuinely perverse way of looking at it. At no time have we refused the export of vaccine to France or anywhere else in the EU. It is AZ who have chosen to abide by their contractual agreements and even then they are still sending vaccine to France - even though it is pretty pointless as France apparently doesn't want it.
Your remarks are particularly stupid and ignorant at a time when AZ are also unable to meet the supply commitments that they made to the UK. And yet the UK response is to say they understand and wait patiently unlike your beloved EU who had a tantrum and threw their toys out of the pram.
So your claims are factually wrong and clearly designed to try and deflect the blame away from where they should go - which in the case of France is straight at Macron
Foxy is also factually wrong. When the EU chucked a mental about AZ's delivery the UK government's response was: measured silence, with the sole remark "this is a matter between the EU and AZ". For once HMG took the correct path, and the moral high ground.
Foxy's hapless and maybe subconscious loathing of Britain for voting Brexit is being exposed, here, I believe. He will get over it, eventually
You mean like Meeks? Next step is to accuse anyone supporting Britain of using the vaccines it ordered in tim & paid more for, of being complicit through wilful negligence in the deaths of thousands of our French brethren... or something!
On topic, I think human sexuality is infinitely complex - and probably a question of shades of grey, and a function of genetics and to some extent experiences - but I really struggle to believe that barely half of Gen Z are straight.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
Surely what matters is what people describe themselves as?
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
It doesn't really matter (unless there's some advantage via positive discrimination), but in reality, I wonder how many men describing themselves as bi would, errr, do the deed.
Depends what you mean by "the deed". Not all gay men actually do full anal sex, for example.
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how I'd personally answer this poll. I've only ever been with and dated women but I'd be open to the possibility of being attracted to a particular man in the future. I guess I identify as "straight", but not 100%?
I appreciate that everyone is different, and perhaps I'm unusual, but I am 100% straight. There are a lot of things in life that are confusing, but this isn't one of them.
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
Back in 2016 (thanks to Mr Meeks) I backed the SNP to lose their majority at 10/1 and 8/1 on election day, which was pooh poohed by the Cybernats.
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
Er, you think Sturgeon will resign before the election, and this will be GOOD for the Nats?!
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
No, I think if Sturgeon went before election day it might make the 50/1 value/a good trading bet as the market overreacted ridiculously.
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
Ah, I misconstrued.
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
What is remarkable is the extent to which others have put their careers on the line to help protect Sturgeon. Life-long dull, dull, dull public servants going to the extremes where people can rightly point and laugh at their creative contortions - all to prevent the First Minister not having to answer the question: did you lie?
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
Yes, that's essentially my reading.
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
The other thing t bear in mind is this all so much scale than Westminster. More like a county council. All these folk will know each other. Long term political colleagues. Living out of each other's pockets. Dining with each other. Sleeping with each other.
There are going to be lives in turmoil. People who do not know which way to turn. And they are making some foolhardy decisions as this churns them up.
Comments
So if I want to hire someone and not pay National Insurance then does the principle of willing buyer, willing seller apply? Which other taxes can we avoid under that principle?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56177177
This is the second big drugs bust in past days. I wonder if this is still fall out from all the info gained from the authorities hacking into Encrochat.
But, not if minimum wage laws are broken. And not if tax laws are broken.
The point is that the au pair is not receiving a wage, it is claimed that (s)he is receiving "pocket money" and "free board & lodging" -- and with this sleight of hand, with this verbal legerdemain, all the usual laws on employment and tax can be avoided by the host family.
I am objecting to the violations of minimum wage and tax law.
(I object to skiers because there is enough sadness in the world without people fixing planks to their feet).
The idea - and this not a British one - is that a young person lives in a foreign country (usually on a gap year) to learn a language and get some experience of being abroad. They are specifically not paid employees.
Ultimately, are they regularly oppressed? If they are, why do large numbers of them still want to travel to the UK and other countries from other rich nations? I guess there might be some global Google coverup. Or it may be that most au pairs, and most people who have au pairs, benefit from the arrangement.
No-one is objecting in to families having au pairs. We just want the same employment law/tax law for nannies to apply to au pairs.
It is a middle-class scam calling the wage "pocket-money" to avoid tax.
Muhammad Abdul Basir, 24, had been due to go on trial at the Old Bailey trial next month accused of uploading videos to YouTube that caused Mr Robinson - real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon to fear for his safety.
The far-right activist had claimed he had been so worried about the content of the clips that he had been forced to remove his children from school.
But when police checked the claims with the school they discovered he had been lying.
Mr Yaxley-Lennon also made false claims about having received official warnings about threats to his safety.
At a pre-trial hearing at the Old Bailey on Wednesday, the Crown offered no evidence and Mr Basir, who was described as having mental health problems, was formally acquitted.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/24/man-accused-racially-harassing-tommy-robinson-cleared-former/
https://smarkets.com/event/41793318/politics/uk/scotland/2021-scottish-parliament-election-snp-majority
It really doesn't take much to tip Holyrood into a hung parliament. After all, Labour designed it that way. With so much uncertainty over Salmondgate,...... 80%?
I don't get that same feeling again this year. The Nats can take a major step towards independence if they win a majority in May, so they'll wear a nosepeg and back the SNP.
I think a First Ministerial resignation before election day might do it.
There is an honest platform for letting people respond freely to incentives, the government butting out and all that. I've got quite a lot sympathy for it. In his heart of hearts, I suspect that the PM does as well.
But it's a 10% in a good year platform. Look at the German FDP, maybe Spanish C's, maybe the circulation of The Economist.
It's not a... plucking a number out of the air... 52%... platform. And that's the problem that has been denied, but hasn't gone away.
So what's the issue. Unless you were talking instead about an employee rather than student learning in which case employment laws apply.
I wouldn't touch it.
Regardless, Macron might have been an ok president as things go, and remain a better alternative than the most likely opponent in the top 2, but even if accepting that there's no reason not to bash for things that deserve bashing. That route is where politicians get us to excuse all their failings because the other guy is worse.
In my part of the world, they’ve recently introduced a government agency which is the registered employer for all foreign domestic staff, after too many scandals around fake agencies, recruitment fees and mistreatment by employers. This story about au pairs seems awfully similar.
Hats off to you, for your earlier winning bet, however
I reckon, right now, it is impossible to say what will happen. It is so volatile. I can see soft YES voters being repelled by Salmond V Sturgeon and going Green, or abstaining, fracturing the SNP vote so they fall short
And that's another, alternative danger for the Nats: a big drop in turnout. Even if/when they do get an overall maj it might be on a significantly decreased vote, giving Boris all the more reason to say Nah
It's a hugely entertaining scandal, anyway, and a welcome diversion from Covid
To be honest I'm still reeling from Sturgeon's contribution today which sounded like, and I paraphrase,
'Yeah Salmond was found not guilty but no smoke without fire eh?'
Either she's very confident in her position or she's panicking.
If nationalist voters vote SNP in the FPTP ballot but then vote Green in the list vote then might that not help ensure more nationalists get elected? Since the Greens are nationalists too and the voting system would see list votes for Greens get more elected due to them having not taken the FPTP seats?
From a quick search Apple iTunes seems to have most of those that were mentioned yesterday for rent at £3.49 or purchase at £7.99. Is that the best option or or there others?
1) Sky Movies
2) Netflix
3) Amazon Prime
4) Disney+/Star
5) Britbox
If it isn't available on those, then I'll buy it on iTunes.
I saw Oasis just after Supersonic came out. Their music was good, I suppose. But it was the most boring performance I had seen in my life up to that point. It was the first gig where I had ever been bored enough to go to the toilet.
Whenever I revisit Definitely Maybe, I'm astonished how good it was. They did the opposite of most bands and released a greatest hits as their first album. There are only a couple of songs off 'What's the story' and nothing thereafter that can hold a candle to Definitely Maybe. After 1996, Oasis just did the same thing over and over again, less interestingly each time. It was a good thing to start with, admittedly. But their career lasted about ten years too long.
Blur don't have an album which comes anywhere near Definitely Maybe. But they've reinvented themselves several times, and have been consistently interesting, and have a handful of songs which get better the more you listen to them.
Oasis are more fun - a lot of the best bits of Blur are quite bleak - but overall I'd give it to Blur. Even though I'm a Mancunian.
And live, Blur are far better.
I may be influenced by the fact that the Gallagher brothers are such utter pains in the arse.
And I agree that Pulp were even better. (Although a lot of Pulp is bleaker still.)
My era of choice though was baggy rather than Britpop - though I was only 15 in 1990 and slightly too young for it. Stone Roses, Happy Mondays, Inspiral Carpets, James, New Fast Automatic Daffodils, Northside, Charlatans...
Sturgeon is definitely panicking. Her remark was an entirely unforced error. There was no reason to say it and it gains her nothing, for those minded to doubt her it looks dodgy, if not defamatory. It will repel or anger neutrals.
Why is she panicking? Because she is lying, and now she has to defend that lie
Remember the first few minutes of this notorious interview on Sky. The normally super-assured Sturgeon is pinned down on this lie. Her contorted body language, especially the rapid blinking, says it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KtcvSVgf-A&t=219s
There probably is, but not found one yet.
Although it is often difficult to find out exactly what is on any streaming service until you have subscribed.
Pulp still sound fresh and up to date to my ears at least.
Doesn't he look tired?
All their conniving and ineptitude has come back to haunt everyone in the UK - including the Scots, who now see their democracy soiled by this latest scandal.
At this stage there doesn't seem to be much desire to go the SNP-Green direction. But who knows for sure.
Because they must know she did. And know that she must resign unless they can extricate her.
Which only becomes explicable if those at the centre of this web have absolute certainty in their hearts that Salmond cannot be allowed to prevail.
https://twitter.com/DevanSinha/status/1364370077320155139
Following someone (you?) recently saying that Prime Video is now on Sky Q, we've just been watching our first Amazon Prime TV series - Wentworth which is an Australian prison drama, from the sounds of it a bit of a modern remake of Prisoner Cell Block H which was before my time. Great series but then Season 6 ended and that was it, nothing left on Prime. Two more seasons are out but apparently if we want to watch those they have to be paid for separately which is very irritating. Searched Google to see if there was anywhere to watch season 7 - it suggested Netflix, but that's only Netflix in America it seems.
Not impressed with Prime over this, being asked to pay for final seasons, not sure how common that is with Prime. Netflix doesn't show all but a couple of seasons then try and sell you the last couple of seasons. Grr.
It's more likely that it's considered somewhat unenlightened by some to *just* consider the opposite sex attractive, there's a whole big difference between saying you can find someone of the same sex attractive and doing the deed.
Take me for example. I am only interested in women. A naked man doesn't do anything for me. Nevertheless very occasionally I can say to myself he is a really really attractive guy, and even be "attracted" to him as a person, but in heavens name I wouldn't dream of jumping into bed with him. Just not interested. So I would answer this question very differently to an achingly right-on student.
I'd say 10-20% (max) of the population are gay or bi-sexual pretty consistently (many of the bis will lead happily straight lives, by and large) and the rest are basically straight. There was an undercount of that 50 years ago and now there's an overcount.
It's okay to describe yourself as straight and it's okay to describe yourself as bi, no?
Which, of course, implies that Salmond DOES have evidence which could being down Sturgeon. Otherwise why these desperate attempts to muffle him? They are scared of him.
If she goes then the entire house of Nat cards could tumble, very quickly. Because her SNP bigwig husband is in it deeper than her. And so on....
I have never argued that the EU contract should have over ridden the UK one, though some in the EU did. The upshot though is that they did not have it at the time and in the numbers to prevent a further wave.
https://twitter.com/EmmaKinery/status/1364661986236194822
I hope this wasn't a hack/system attack.
Allowed to take what?
Like I said earlier, I'm not sure how I'd personally answer this poll. I've only ever been with and dated women but I'd be open to the possibility of being attracted to a particular man in the future. I guess I identify as "straight", but not 100%?
The upshot is that France could not have prevented a further wave by vaccination. It remains to be seen if we can either, even with a 4 week headstart, though probably mortality and admissions will be fewer.
They could have had more by signing contracts sooner.
And they do have vaccines (and have had for weeks now) that they've not used and those they have used they've used ineffectively by stubbornly sticking to giving boosters for half as many people instead of vaccinating twice as many despite learning from our experience that it works.
So yes a lot fewer people are vaccinated than could have been, even taking into account their procurement failures which had nothing to do with us.
I have never suggested they had a right to have the vaccines, just observed that a wave could not have been prevented if vaccines were not there to be used.
But like I say, I may be unusual.
There are going to be lives in turmoil. People who do not know which way to turn. And they are making some foolhardy decisions as this churns them up.