MrsT had a rather angry response to today's news report.
Basically said "You know what, we've all had a difficult year and I couldn't give a flying f*** about these two. The news today should be full of happy smiling kids going back to school."
Pleased to see the Covid case rate is still going down at a rapid rate - from 69.0 per 100k yesterday to 65.1 today - and the death count in double figures again. Of course, as far as the cases go it'll probably only be a day or two before the little Plague spreaders reignite the whole dumpster fire, but we can enjoy it whilst it lasts.
Testing results announced today up 60% on last week - figures this week are going to be a joke.
Cases down 13% regardless, but clearly would have been a much bigger fall without the extra load of false positives
You have no evidence for such an assertion. False positives was a bullshit hypothesis when it was advanced last autumn, and it's bullshit now unless you can come up with actual evidence.
Similarly herd immunity, which you were touting upthread.
--AS
What a weird aggressive post.
I am quoting the government's own estimate of false positives for lateral flow tests, which is 0.31%, so an extra 300,000 tests conducted compared to the same day last week would generate another 900 false positives, and so the case fall looks like 13% rather than the reality of more like 30%.
False positives are a fact of life for any test no matter how many childish swear words you want to bring out.
The stats for lateral flow tests for school kids should be shown in stats as a separate column. Millions of tests. Done by amateurs. Some are going to be false +.
I doubt they're in the figures today; only 800,000 tests were done for our current case load; it was higher on three days last week. The average over the last fortnight has been just short of 700,000.
I was told by my wife (who is volunteering to administer them at school) that the LTF will not show on the UK figures for number of tests taken.
A positive result WILL show when the positive LTF goes on to become a positive PCR.
A suggestion in a Whatsapp Group that the Sussexes should lose their titles. It does seem odd that they hold on to them, given that they regard the entire institution of the royal family as bigoted, cruel and exclusive
Yeah the way to show the Royal Family isn't bigoted is to keep Andrew as a Prince but strip the black girl who dared to speak up of her title.
That will show em.
Mixed race girl! Her dad is white!
And also (imo) because she was to marry into a senior position in the Royal Family. Otherwise "black" would have been used more frequently - as it is with other high profile individuals of similar ethnicity and looks, regardless of how they wish to identify.
MrsT had a rather angry response to today's news report.
Basically said "You know what, we've all had a difficult year and I couldn't give a flying f*** about these two. The news today should be full of happy smiling kids going back to school."
Can't disagree with that.
I must be tired. I was wondering how Margaret Thatcher came into this.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
The fall of Troy and the flight of Aeneas for a start. So all of Western history...
To be fair, it did air at 11pm on the East coast, so there will be a lot of catch up viewing today.
Also, it's not the Superbowl.
No it didn’t: it aired 8pm - 10pm Eastern. Didn’t you know that most things get shown in Eastern/Central first then rebroadcast in Mountain/Pacific two hours later?
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
The fall of Troy and the flight of Aeneas for a start. So all of Western history...
I think it was EH Carr who hypothesised the Roman Empire was created by the shape of Cleopatra’s nose.
“The UK press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids. But unfortunately if the source of info is inherently corrupt or racist or biased then that filters out to the rest of society.”
Forgive us Lord Harry. We know not what we do. Teach us. Guide us. Show us the light.
I am very sorry to hear that news. We had some interesting cats and he was a great poster. I used to enjoy picturing him on the veranda in the sun. Thank you for telling us and all the best wishes in the world.
HOLYROOD'S harassment complaints committee have now been handed Whatsapp messages from the Crown Office that Alex Salmond has claimed proves there was a high level plot by Nicola Sturgeon's allies to ruin him and even send him to jail.
Strange that WhatsApp messages that have been denied even existed have now been handed over. Everybody who testified and said these messages didn’t exist are now proven liars
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I find with NHS people different approaches are needed. There is the sweet talk for receptionists, the more in sorrow than anger for GP practice managers, the all guns blazing for hospital PALS depts.
And then there is also the time I have in the past stood in the middle of a ward as the consultants' round appeared with entourage and threatened, loudly to all, to call the police if treatment wasn't forthcoming (not for me for a relative).
The NHS is deeply flawed for a significant part of its operations. The sad thing is how common NHS failings are when speaking to friends and acquaintances.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Labour has been found guilty of being a racist party, now Keir Starmer wants to investigate possible racism and that is the wrong thing to do? He didn't say anyone was racist, he just called for an objective investigation.
Surely this is exactly the right lesson to have learned from the Corbyn era, he can't win
The allegation is that a Royal individual said something offensive to Meghan. So let's say the investigator finds that indeed, a Royal individual did say something offensive to Meghan. Then what? What is the happy outcome that is achieved? It's not a very clever suggestion, and worse, it's never going to be seen as a very clever suggestion.
What it tells me is that Starmer's republican sentiments actually probably go quite deep, which is interesting. He's always seemed quite non-ideological.
How about an apology?
They can go a long way. And be a learning experience to stop this happening again.
I am flabbergasted at the utterly insupportable pish you go in for sometimes. You actually think we should have an official investigation into whether a snarky Royal once said something off-colour to Meghan Markle? I mean really. REALLY? How does that remotely accord to respect for the taxpayer, proportionality in the justice system, actual real people having actual real problems?
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I'm sure it would be thrown straight into the bin.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Pretty much most of it, I reckon
It's why I think it's a good thing when the people in charge aren't particularly physically attractive, as was the case with for instance John Major and George HW Bush and their wives. It shows a society has managed to move on from that stage.
John Major was attractive. Certainly top quartile for PMs.
Labour has been found guilty of being a racist party, now Keir Starmer wants to investigate possible racism and that is the wrong thing to do? He didn't say anyone was racist, he just called for an objective investigation.
Surely this is exactly the right lesson to have learned from the Corbyn era, he can't win
The allegation is that a Royal individual said something offensive to Meghan. So let's say the investigator finds that indeed, a Royal individual did say something offensive to Meghan. Then what? What is the happy outcome that is achieved? It's not a very clever suggestion, and worse, it's never going to be seen as a very clever suggestion.
What it tells me is that Starmer's republican sentiments actually probably go quite deep, which is interesting. He's always seemed quite non-ideological.
An investigation is thinkable.
Once they decide between themselves what they want to allege that someone has done.
That they seem to be disagreeing in public might be a slight difficulty.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I'm sure it would be thrown straight into the bin.
Whatever the outcome after you have received your jab make sure you instigate an official complaint against the GP surgery.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Pretty much most of it, I reckon
"Men test ideas. Women test men."
Solid gold, 24 carat, misogynistic drivel.
Biological fact. The desire to procreate drives all of life, it is THE goal of any living being, such that they will go hungry, thirsty. whatever to achieve it; many organisms die when it is finally done. Many creatures fight to the death for the best mates
The male pursuit of beautiful women - fitted ideally for reproduction, as that is what beauty signals - is just a particular form of this. So, yes, it is a primary driver of humanity, and thus shapes all of human society, civilisation and history
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with God, Darwin, or your psycho-therapist (you must have one) as you are arguing with basic reality, not with me
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
“The UK press is bigoted, specifically the tabloids. But unfortunately if the source of info is inherently corrupt or racist or biased then that filters out to the rest of society.”
Forgive us Lord Harry. We know not what we do. Teach us. Guide us. Show us the light.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Pretty much most of it, I reckon
"Men test ideas. Women test men."
Solid gold, 24 carat, misogynistic drivel.
Biological fact. The desire to procreate drives all of life, it is THE goal of any living being, such that they will go hungry, thirsty. whatever to achieve it; many organisms die when it is finally done. Many creatures fight to the death for the best mates
The male pursuit of beautiful women - fitted ideally for reproduction, as that is what beauty signals - is just a particular form of this. So, yes, it is a primary driver of humanity, and thus shapes all of human society, civilisation and history
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with God, Darwin, or your psycho-therapist (you must have one) as you are arguing with basic reality, not with me
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
The fall of Troy and the flight of Aeneas for a start. So all of Western history...
I think it was EH Carr who hypothesised the Roman Empire was created by the shape of Cleopatra’s nose.
That’s garbage though.
It might have accelerated Caesar’s disaffection with Rome, but by the time Octavian and Mark Anthony were drooling over her it was just a matter of who won
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
If there's a way to stop you wondering that, please let me know and I'll have a bash.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
The fall of Troy and the flight of Aeneas for a start. So all of Western history...
I think it was EH Carr who hypothesised the Roman Empire was created by the shape of Cleopatra’s nose.
That’s garbage though.
It might have accelerated Caesar’s disaffection with Rome, but by the time Octavian and Mark Anthony were drooling over her it was just a matter of who won
EH Carr was a Marxist who denounced all reports of the GULAGs as lies. Are you saying he was speaking garbage? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
I was just using it as another example of how people have described your hypothesis.
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
Given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be a credible claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
I’m Nichomar’s daughter - never actually noticed the Nichomar/Nichochar thing before.
Just wanted to say a huge thank you to those who posted condolences on hearing the news about Dad. I knew my dad loved a bit of political debate, but I had no idea he’d become part of such an online community.
You would have all provided him with much-needed companionship and healthy conversation, particularly in the past year when the cancer and the situation with COVID prevented him getting out and about so much and meant we weren’t able to visit. Thank you all. I wish you all well. Take care.
So sorry to hear your news; thank you so much for posting.
Please accept my deepest condolences. Thoughts are with you and your family.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
The fall of Troy and the flight of Aeneas for a start. So all of Western history...
I think it was EH Carr who hypothesised the Roman Empire was created by the shape of Cleopatra’s nose.
That’s garbage though.
It might have accelerated Caesar’s disaffection with Rome, but by the time Octavian and Mark Anthony were drooling over her it was just a matter of who won
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I'm sure it would be thrown straight into the bin.
The TRUE test of your learned skill & native cunning, is drafting a letter that will be NOT be binned. OR at least absorbed BEFORE consignment to the round file.
I did a whole load of jobs in Chicago from 2005/08 and got to know the people I worked with well. They had the notion that 'Europe' was pretty well free of racism whereas it was endemic in the US including Chicago where Oprah is from. It seemed a bit simplistic but it did give me quite a rosy feeling that they saw us as being less primitive than they saw themselves. I fear the reason Oprah keeps puffing out air like a pregnant toad is because the racism angle has come as a surprise
My condolences too for Nichomar. I'm a regular reader and an irregular writer and I sense we do develop a genuine like and regard for fellow participants whom we have never met. PB is pleasant and civilized (at least by by internet standards) the odd strop and insult not withstanding.
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
The problem Harry and Megan face is that they are just celebs now. The young might be fans today, but that will fade, and they don’t really have any skills to offer the world (flying an Apache helicopter gunship isn’t really a transferable one).
All of that means that I think they face the thing they will hate the most: irrelevance plus paparazzi beach shots.
In contrast the royal family has time on its side, and a great many more ribbons it can cut in the future.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Pretty much most of it, I reckon
"Men test ideas. Women test men."
Solid gold, 24 carat, misogynistic drivel.
Biological fact. The desire to procreate drives all of life, it is THE goal of any living being, such that they will go hungry, thirsty. whatever to achieve it; many organisms die when it is finally done. Many creatures fight to the death for the best mates
The male pursuit of beautiful women - fitted ideally for reproduction, as that is what beauty signals - is just a particular form of this. So, yes, it is a primary driver of humanity, and thus shapes all of human society, civilisation and history
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with God, Darwin, or your psycho-therapist (you must have one) as you are arguing with basic reality, not with me
Human procreation and mating is a crux and fascinating area. But discussion of it often presents as Swiss Toni style barroom musing - as in cartoon patriarchal nonsense like "human history is driven by the pursuit of beautiful women by powerful men".
So I was kind of hoping if I jumped on that now, it wouldn't develop and potentially get even more crass. Because you know what can happen on here if you are allowed to set the tone. It gets whiffy. Not always but quite often.
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
I think that could work too, but a total freeze might be a bit harsh and overshadow the bonus.
I find with NHS people different approaches are needed. There is the sweet talk for receptionists, the more in sorrow than anger for GP practice managers, the all guns blazing for hospital PALS depts.
And then there is also the time I have in the past stood in the middle of a ward as the consultants' round appeared with entourage and threatened, loudly to all, to call the police if treatment wasn't forthcoming (not for me for a relative).
The NHS is deeply flawed for a significant part of its operations. The sad thing is how common NHS failings are when speaking to friends and acquaintances.
Nhs as a whole is venerated, sadly too often it’s overstretched, asked to do too much with limited resources, and sometimes people are let down. It’s still a remarkable thing though, and for the most part does a good job. Vaccine roll out is a good example.
My condolences too for Nichomar. I'm a regular reader and an irregular writer and I sense we do develop a genuine like and regard for fellow participants whom we have never met. PB is pleasant and civilized (at least by by internet standards) the odd strop and insult not withstanding.
Yes, it's been a big part of my life for over fifteen years.
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
The aggression of the D&D of Windsor versus The Firm was both highlighted and blunted by WW2. Which gave a big boost to GVI and the (eventual) Queen Mum, to the detriment of the ex-King over the water.
Also, think there was a pretty strong age gap in support versus opposition EVIII and his wish for Wallis. Which was also reduced due to WW2, however NOT entirely, as also think it was part of the ongoing public fascination with the Duke & Duchess of Windsor on both sides of the Atlantic (and the Pacific).
HOLYROOD'S harassment complaints committee have now been handed Whatsapp messages from the Crown Office that Alex Salmond has claimed proves there was a high level plot by Nicola Sturgeon's allies to ruin him and even send him to jail.
Strange that WhatsApp messages that have been denied even existed have now been handed over. Everybody who testified and said these messages didn’t exist are now proven liars
Do you think Nicola's been a wee bit naughty Malc?
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
At the turn of the century there were a lot more questions about the future of the monarchy, post-Paris, than there have been in recent decades.
The quick succession deaths of Margaret and the Queen Mother seemed to draw a line under the post-Diana discussions about the future of the monarchy.
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
The problem Harry and Megan face is that they are just celebs now. The young might be fans today, but that will fade, and they don’t really have any skills to offer the world (flying an Apache helicopter gunship isn’t really a transferable one).
All of that means that I think they face the thing they will hate the most: irrelevance plus paparazzi beach shots.
In contrast the royal family has time on its side, and a great many more ribbons it can cut in the future.
All true. I’m not hopeful for Harry, down the line. Perhaps the death of Her Maj will be the catharsis that leads to reconciliation. It is the best option for him. A bitterly divided family is a sad and corrosive thing
The royals now face a rocky few years as the aftershocks of this fade away. There’s not much more H&M can do, this is surely their biggest gun blazing. I suppose they could name the accused royal, but that would start to seem vindictive
The Firm will have to endure the Flak. But they’ve done it before
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
If they get 100 million views from it and a hugely enhanced profile, with a lot of sympathy to go with it, then it's been hugely beneficial from their point of view and I suspect they were advised accordingly.
I think the best course for the Royal Family is to maintain a dignified silence. Commenting or stripping them of titles would simply play into their hands.
So there we have it, racism is only useful to score political points. As clear as day, PB Tories will always revert to type when it is in their interest to do so.
Pathetic, utterly pathetic.
What are you talking about?
Is Dan Hodges a PB Tory?
According to his mother Hodges is an idiot. He seems to swing between pro- Corbyn and pro-Johnson. He used to be a sensible centre-left commentator.
The usual suspects seem to have nailed their colours to the Meghan mast (which is fair enough) so why shouldn't Starmer? You normally complain at Starmer for sitting on the fence-Sir Abstainalot! I am not sure whether it is sensible or foolish....yet. Only time will tell. Don't forget the pendulum swung against the establishment Royals after Diana's Bashir interview.
So there we have it, racism is only useful to score political points. As clear as day, PB Tories will always revert to type when it is in their interest to do so.
Pathetic, utterly pathetic.
What are you talking about?
Is Dan Hodges a PB Tory?
According to his mother Hodges is an idiot. He seems to swing between pro- Corbyn and pro-Johnson. He used to be a sensible centre-left commentator.
The usual suspects seem to have nailed their colours to the Meghan mast (which is fair enough) so why shouldn't Starmer? You normally complain at Starmer for sitting on the fence-Sir Abstainalot! I am not sure whether it is sensible or foolish....yet. Only time will tell. Don't forget the pendulum swung against the establishment Royals after Diana's Bashir interview.
He's a left hating centrist like you. But I MUCH prefer you.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Pretty much most of it, I reckon
"Men test ideas. Women test men."
Solid gold, 24 carat, misogynistic drivel.
Biological fact. The desire to procreate drives all of life, it is THE goal of any living being, such that they will go hungry, thirsty. whatever to achieve it; many organisms die when it is finally done. Many creatures fight to the death for the best mates
The male pursuit of beautiful women - fitted ideally for reproduction, as that is what beauty signals - is just a particular form of this. So, yes, it is a primary driver of humanity, and thus shapes all of human society, civilisation and history
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with God, Darwin, or your psycho-therapist (you must have one) as you are arguing with basic reality, not with me
Human procreation and mating is a crux and fascinating area. But discussion of it often presents as Swiss Toni style barroom musing - as in cartoon patriarchal nonsense like "human history is driven by the pursuit of beautiful women by powerful men".
So I was kind of hoping if I jumped on that now, it wouldn't develop and potentially get even more crass. Because you know what can happen on here if you are allowed to set the tone. It gets whiffy. Not always but quite often.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Thanks I’ll pass that on.
One of the issues highlighted by COVID is the immense variations in the quality of people - some GPs deserve the Order of the Garter. Some deserve the Order Of The Boot.
My GP, when COVID started, went to work putting her vulnerable patients on every list and system. Did several rounds of trawling through the patient list to make sure that everyone was included....
Another local GP vanished, apart from appearing on the local borough chat board to complain about things.... A picture of the mail piling up inside his surgery glass front door made the local chat board. Then he vanished again....
So there we have it, racism is only useful to score political points. As clear as day, PB Tories will always revert to type when it is in their interest to do so.
Pathetic, utterly pathetic.
What are you talking about?
Is Dan Hodges a PB Tory?
According to his mother Hodges is an idiot. He seems to swing between pro- Corbyn and pro-Johnson. He used to be a sensible centre-left commentator.
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
The key thing is that it's yet another manifestation of the same miserable age profile thing that infects every other part of life in the UK.
If you are of A Certain Age, you look at the Queen and see royalty as a life of privelige and quiet duty, being uncontroversial and opening sports centres. And H and M have broken the rules. Cast them out.
If you are younger, you see Andrew and Edward and think "Quiet duty? Chinny reckon." And you think that Harry somehow has to create a better life path for redundant spare heirs, he can't do worse than his uncles, and if he has found happiness in marriage, good on him.
Maybe Britain came to terms with the 1960s, because the changes were so in-your-face that it had no choice but to confront it. Something happened to society in the Blair-Cameron years, but I don't know what. We do seem to still be fighting over it, though. And until we work out what, we can't collectively move on.
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
I think that could work too, but a total freeze might be a bit harsh and overshadow the bonus.
Not a suggestion for now, its too late now, but had it been announced from the start I think it could have worked.
Had the starting announcement been all public sector pay is frozen, but to thank our hardworking nurses they will be given a 10% bonus on their salary, I think that would have gone down far better.
A 1% pay rise satisfies nobody. It kind of says "why bother". Which is a shame as its above inflation, inflation is sub 1% right now. Had there been 2.9% inflation and a 3% pay rise it wouldn't have sounded so bad but would have been no more generous.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I'm sure it would be thrown straight into the bin.
The TRUE test of your learned skill & native cunning, is drafting a letter that will be NOT be binned. OR at least absorbed BEFORE consignment to the round file.
Such a letter is more likely to trigger a slow and laborious process of reply to a formal complaint than a speedy immunisation.
GPS don't like second hand orders from hospital specialists along the line of "tell your GP to do this". It really gets their back up.
Conceivably an immune disorder could be a contraindication to immunisation, particularly with a live vaccine. It is reasonable for a GP to defer to someone else if this is unclear.
What the Consultant should have done is to write to the GP, clarifying the nature of the condition, and that there is no contraindication to vaccination, and a recommendation that the patient is classified in group 6.
Flying off the handle at the slightest problem is not generally the best way to get things done, and indeed often counterproductive.
Given that baby Archie is three-quarters white (Meghan's dad is white after all), can it really be a credible claim that anyone (Royal or otherwise) would be concerned how "black" his skin would be?
My bet is, it was a misconceived shot at intimate chat by one of William and Kate misperceived by them as no different from saying I wonder if it'll have Harry's hair. If so, best for them to say so.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
Pretty much most of it, I reckon
"Men test ideas. Women test men."
Solid gold, 24 carat, misogynistic drivel.
Biological fact. The desire to procreate drives all of life, it is THE goal of any living being, such that they will go hungry, thirsty. whatever to achieve it; many organisms die when it is finally done. Many creatures fight to the death for the best mates
The male pursuit of beautiful women - fitted ideally for reproduction, as that is what beauty signals - is just a particular form of this. So, yes, it is a primary driver of humanity, and thus shapes all of human society, civilisation and history
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with God, Darwin, or your psycho-therapist (you must have one) as you are arguing with basic reality, not with me
Human procreation and mating is a crux and fascinating area. But discussion of it often presents as Swiss Toni style barroom musing - as in cartoon patriarchal nonsense like "human history is driven by the pursuit of beautiful women by powerful men".
So I was kind of hoping if I jumped on that now, it wouldn't develop and potentially get even more crass. Because you know what can happen on here if you are allowed to set the tone. It gets whiffy. Not always but quite often.
HOLYROOD'S harassment complaints committee have now been handed Whatsapp messages from the Crown Office that Alex Salmond has claimed proves there was a high level plot by Nicola Sturgeon's allies to ruin him and even send him to jail.
Strange that WhatsApp messages that have been denied even existed have now been handed over. Everybody who testified and said these messages didn’t exist are now proven liars
Do you think Nicola's been a wee bit naughty Malc?
Hello GIN, she is a total roaster, surrounded by handpicked wrong un's , should be a shedload of them heading for the pokey but we will be lucky if we see them sacked.
Duke & Duchess of Sussex is an amazing modern-dress re-enactment of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor blockbuster.
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
It really is a strange echo, right down to her being American. HOWEVER there is a difference which makes it worse for the present royals: H&M are determined to damage the royal family in revenge (that is the only way to read what they've done, even if you completely believe them), and Meghan has much sympathy, especially amongst the young.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
If they get 100 million views from it and a hugely enhanced profile, with a lot of sympathy to go with it, then it's been hugely beneficial from their point of view and I suspect they were advised accordingly.
I think the best course for the Royal Family is to maintain a dignified silence. Commenting or stripping them of titles would simply play into their hands.
Agreed 100% though I'd say they'd have been better advised to have maintained a dignified silence before the interview too rather than trashing her in the media, which I think has played into their hands.
Looking at that photo I've realised why Meghan slightly unnerves me, even as I am compelled to look at her. She is the spitting image of a young girlfriend I had about 20 years ago, who I loved very much but who went on to break my heart. Like Meghan she was mixed race (in her case Indian, Jewish, Portuguese, English), like Meghan she was strikingly beautiful.
It is remarkable, the power of female beauty, over men.
And maybe that's why I also sympathise with Harry
It makes you wonder how much of world history over the millennia has been actuated by female beauty and the pursuit of it by powerful men.
The fall of Troy and the flight of Aeneas for a start. So all of Western history...
I think it was EH Carr who hypothesised the Roman Empire was created by the shape of Cleopatra’s nose.
That’s garbage though.
It might have accelerated Caesar’s disaffection with Rome, but by the time Octavian and Mark Anthony were drooling over her it was just a matter of who won
"Does my Asp look big in this?"
"No way! That's why I rolled out the red carpet for you - wanna play Twister?"
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
I think that could work too, but a total freeze might be a bit harsh and overshadow the bonus.
Not a suggestion for now, its too late now, but had it been announced from the start I think it could have worked.
Had the starting announcement been all public sector pay is frozen, but to thank our hardworking nurses they will be given a 10% bonus on their salary, I think that would have gone down far better.
A 1% pay rise satisfies nobody. It kind of says "why bother". Which is a shame as its above inflation, inflation is sub 1% right now. Had there been 2.9% inflation and a 3% pay rise it wouldn't have sounded so bad but would have been no more generous.
It's the logic that led to the 75p Pension Rise under Gordon Brown.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I'm sure it would be thrown straight into the bin.
The TRUE test of your learned skill & native cunning, is drafting a letter that will be NOT be binned. OR at least absorbed BEFORE consignment to the round file.
Such a letter is more likely to trigger a slow and laborious process of reply to a formal complaint than a speedy immunisation.
GPS don't like second hand orders from hospital specialists along the line of "tell your GP to do this". It really gets their back up.
Conceivably an immune disorder could be a contraindication to immunisation, particularly with a live vaccine. It is reasonable for a GP to defer to someone else if this is unclear.
What the Consultant should have done is to write to the GP, clarifying the nature of the condition, and that there is no contraindication to vaccination, and a recommendation that the patient is classified in group 6.
Flying off the handle at the slightest problem is not generally the best way to get things done, and indeed often counterproductive.
Will defer to your expertise on this. Indeed, most lawyer letter deserve to be written - but few should be sent!
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
I think that could work too, but a total freeze might be a bit harsh and overshadow the bonus.
Not a suggestion for now, its too late now, but had it been announced from the start I think it could have worked.
Had the starting announcement been all public sector pay is frozen, but to thank our hardworking nurses they will be given a 10% bonus on their salary, I think that would have gone down far better.
A 1% pay rise satisfies nobody. It kind of says "why bother". Which is a shame as its above inflation, inflation is sub 1% right now. Had there been 2.9% inflation and a 3% pay rise it wouldn't have sounded so bad but would have been no more generous.
I have to say that too many are calling this a 1% pay rise when it is HMG's submission to the pay review which reports in May
At that time then the actual recommendation will become known, and of course it will have an effect across the four nations, so I just cannot see why a 1% rise is assumed
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
That is much what the Scottish Gmt want to do but have been savagely poohpoohed - not least because the UK Gmt woulodn't give tax relief. Though given the latter, 10% of salary that is a more realistic figure than the £500 that could be done without a Barnett consequential. Also hopefully less likely to run into UC and marginal taxation anomalies.
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
I think that could work too, but a total freeze might be a bit harsh and overshadow the bonus.
Not a suggestion for now, its too late now, but had it been announced from the start I think it could have worked.
Had the starting announcement been all public sector pay is frozen, but to thank our hardworking nurses they will be given a 10% bonus on their salary, I think that would have gone down far better.
A 1% pay rise satisfies nobody. It kind of says "why bother". Which is a shame as its above inflation, inflation is sub 1% right now. Had there been 2.9% inflation and a 3% pay rise it wouldn't have sounded so bad but would have been no more generous.
It's the logic that led to the 75p Pension Rise under Gordon Brown.
HOLYROOD'S harassment complaints committee have now been handed Whatsapp messages from the Crown Office that Alex Salmond has claimed proves there was a high level plot by Nicola Sturgeon's allies to ruin him and even send him to jail.
Strange that WhatsApp messages that have been denied even existed have now been handed over. Everybody who testified and said these messages didn’t exist are now proven liars
Do you think Nicola's been a wee bit naughty Malc?
Hello GIN, she is a total roaster, surrounded by handpicked wrong un's , should be a shedload of them heading for the pokey but we will be lucky if we see them sacked.
Why did she/they do it though? That's what I can't work out? I mean Alex had retired from front line politics so it's not like he was threat to her/her job?
Why not just give the (frontline) NHS workers exposed to risk a one-off tax-free bonus of £2,000 each - put it in the Covid slush pot for FY20/21; may as well given the £400bn spaffed up the wall - and up their pay by 2.1%, at a cost of the extra £1.2bn per year or whatever?
These will be rounding errors over 5 years anyway.
The problem with pay rises is its permanent, exponential and there's no gratitude for it. It could be 2.1% this year and then that increases expenditure by close to a billion pounds per annum in perpetuity. Then this time next year there'll again be a clammer for pay rises with the old pay rise 'banked'.
I thought it was an interesting point by Boris that what nurses have said to him (and it is what campaigners have been saying) is that the nurses need more colleagues, more nurses and there's 10,000 extra nurses over the last year and more being recruited still. So a pay rise becomes even more expensive as numbers rise further - or you have the same budget, give a pay rise but lose the extra colleagues to come.
Do nurses want to lose the extra colleagues to come who are being hired to reduce their workload? I doubt it.
I get that, and normally I'd agree with you, and I just think the events of the last year have been so exceptional and what they've had to go through so traumatic that I think they've gone above and beyond and deserve it. They faced a level of risk I never did.
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
A pay freeze but a one off bonus would have probably been smarter politics and smarter economics. Could have frozen all pay without exceptions but given a 10% bonus to nurses etc - a 10% bonus one off would cost less over a 5 year term than a 2.1% increase but would have come across as more generous.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
That is much what the Scottish Gmt want to do but have been savagely poohpoohed - not least because the UK Gmt woulodn't give tax relief. Though given the latter, 10% of salary that is a more realistic figure than the £500 that could be done without a Barnett consequential. Also hopefully less likely to run into UC and marginal taxation anomalies.
I think you need to check what the deal actually was with the tax.
The UK Government doesn't get the tax, the Scottish Government does, so the UK Government advised the Scottish Government to uprate for tax - they would then get the tax back so it would go through at £500 net of tax.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
Yes, I'm in a similar situation. Have a fairly rare condition and should probably be vaccinated (whether I get offered the flu jab seems entirely random from year to year) but I'm not on the tick list.
It's okay, though, I'm in the 45+ group so don't expect to have to wait too many more weeks anyway. So I'm not going to pester.
I've emailed the IBD nursing team at my hospital about it too. Hopefully they can offer some advice or even call the GP surgery on my behalf.
I think sadly that group 6 is the area where things have been fudged. I have a family member with a very rare immune disorder which isn’t on the easy computer tick list for priority. Their consultant said “make sure your gp gets you on the priority list”.
All the GP said was “oh I don’t know anything about the vaccines, it’s nothing to do with me. Email this random email address”.
Email address: < we have received your message please do no reply to this address >
MP: no answer
That's what the GP said? Incredible. You can tell him that the Head of NHS, Simon Stevens, said on live TV about three weeks ago (at the evening presser) that doing Group 6 vulnerables would be the responsibility of GPs, as they know their patients who need to be in that class far better than the central NHS.
Gallowgate could gain useful professional experience, drafting Moonshine a snarky lawyer letter to send to his GP, Dr. Fuddy-Duddy.
I'm sure it would be thrown straight into the bin.
The TRUE test of your learned skill & native cunning, is drafting a letter that will be NOT be binned. OR at least absorbed BEFORE consignment to the round file.
Such a letter is more likely to trigger a slow and laborious process of reply to a formal complaint than a speedy immunisation.
GPS don't like second hand orders from hospital specialists along the line of "tell your GP to do this". It really gets their back up.
Conceivably an immune disorder could be a contraindication to immunisation, particularly with a live vaccine. It is reasonable for a GP to defer to someone else if this is unclear.
What the Consultant should have done is to write to the GP, clarifying the nature of the condition, and that there is no contraindication to vaccination, and a recommendation that the patient is classified in group 6.
Flying off the handle at the slightest problem is not generally the best way to get things done, and indeed often counterproductive.
Will defer to your expertise on this. Indeed, most lawyer letter deserve to be written - but few should be sent!
While a lawyer writing to a GP in the States is commonplace, Sea Shanty, you underestimate the reverence in which the local GP is held in the U.K. Such reverence has markedly decreased in recent years I’ll readily admit but even so to instruct one’s solicitor to write a letter to one’s GP....shudders. I’d probably get struck off if I did that.
HOLYROOD'S harassment complaints committee have now been handed Whatsapp messages from the Crown Office that Alex Salmond has claimed proves there was a high level plot by Nicola Sturgeon's allies to ruin him and even send him to jail.
Strange that WhatsApp messages that have been denied even existed have now been handed over. Everybody who testified and said these messages didn’t exist are now proven liars
Do you think Nicola's been a wee bit naughty Malc?
Hello GIN, she is a total roaster, surrounded by handpicked wrong un's , should be a shedload of them heading for the pokey but we will be lucky if we see them sacked.
Why did she/they do it though? That's what I can't work out? I mean Alex had retired from front line politics so it's not like he was threat to her/her job?
They thought he might come back and after 2017 conference where he was more popular than Sturgeon , she was real miffed. They thought he would go quietly no doubt but he soon put that one to bed and they had to keep escalating to cover their hides. It all went Pete Tong, the complainers were seemingly all her close friends and work mates , hence the panic re their names being leaked.
Comments
Basically said "You know what, we've all had a difficult year and I couldn't give a flying f*** about these two. The news today should be full of happy smiling kids going back to school."
Can't disagree with that.
Solid gold, 24 carat, misogynistic drivel.
Forgive us Lord Harry. We know not what we do. Teach us. Guide us. Show us the light.
Strange that WhatsApp messages that have been denied even existed have now been handed over. Everybody who testified and said these messages didn’t exist are now proven liars
The Duchess will always find support among her own generation by choosing to live life on her own terms – the ultimate Gen Y goal
By Radhika Sanghani"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/meghan-millennial-hero/
I can understand people falling through cracks but those who haven't dealt with their patients at all ... I pity those vulnerable with shit GPs.
And then there is also the time I have in the past stood in the middle of a ward as the consultants' round appeared with entourage and threatened, loudly to all, to call the police if treatment wasn't forthcoming (not for me for a relative).
The NHS is deeply flawed for a significant part of its operations. The sad thing is how common NHS failings are when speaking to friends and acquaintances.
😳
Once they decide between themselves what they want to allege that someone has done.
That they seem to be disagreeing in public might be a slight difficulty.
The male pursuit of beautiful women - fitted ideally for reproduction, as that is what beauty signals - is just a particular form of this. So, yes, it is a primary driver of humanity, and thus shapes all of human society, civilisation and history
If you have an issue with this, I suggest you take it up with God, Darwin, or your psycho-therapist (you must have one) as you are arguing with basic reality, not with me
That would be a start.
https://youtu.be/N003nbD7wTY
It might have accelerated Caesar’s disaffection with Rome, but by the time Octavian and Mark Anthony were drooling over her it was just a matter of who won
I was just using it as another example of how people have described your hypothesis.
From case data
Form hospitalisations
Which in an odd by very direct way was responsible for creating the modern British monarchy. In somewhat similar fashion, to how the wretched excesses of the the last Hanoverians proved to be a surprising effective foundation for Queen Victoria & her successors.
In other words, the sky may NOT be falling for the House of Windsor-Mountbatten-Whatever.
However, they DO need to adapt. AND fire the chinless wonders!
I certainly wouldn't do it every year. And I'd be firm on that.
Plus the bonus would go to people who actually worked this year, rather than future hires.
Please accept my deepest condolences. Thoughts are with you and your family.
This is true even in Britain (obviously true in America). Look at the polls. Even within my family anyone in their 20s or below is generally on the side of H&M, everyone over 30 is the opposite. This is what makes Meghan so dangerous. Her popularity. She's like a steelier version of Diana.
Wallis Simpson did not seek to destroy the Royals, even if she could, she was also pretty unpopular with nearly everyone - visiting Hitler and so on. Yuk.
However I expect the Windsors to endure, because that is the nature of these never ending sagas, they never end. The next big drama, sadly, will probably be a significant death or two. Sympathy will swing back.
Will Harry even attend the funerals? It is brilliant theatre (which is another reason it will carry on)
All of that means that I think they face the thing they will hate the most: irrelevance plus paparazzi beach shots.
In contrast the royal family has time on its side, and a great many more ribbons it can cut in the future.
So I was kind of hoping if I jumped on that now, it wouldn't develop and potentially get even more crass. Because you know what can happen on here if you are allowed to set the tone. It gets whiffy. Not always but quite often.
I honestly don't know what I'd do without it.
Also, think there was a pretty strong age gap in support versus opposition EVIII and his wish for Wallis. Which was also reduced due to WW2, however NOT entirely, as also think it was part of the ongoing public fascination with the Duke & Duchess of Windsor on both sides of the Atlantic (and the Pacific).
The quick succession deaths of Margaret and the Queen Mother seemed to draw a line under the post-Diana discussions about the future of the monarchy.
Ro = 2.5, HI = 60%
Ro = 3.0, HI = 66%
Ro = 3.5, HI = 71.5%
Ro = 4.0, HI = 75%
Ro = 4.5, HI = 78%
Ro = 5.0, HI = 80%
The royals now face a rocky few years as the aftershocks of this fade away. There’s not much more H&M can do, this is surely their biggest gun blazing. I suppose they could name the accused royal, but that would start to seem vindictive
The Firm will have to endure the Flak. But they’ve done it before
I think the best course for the Royal Family is to maintain a dignified silence. Commenting or stripping them of titles would simply play into their hands.
The usual suspects seem to have nailed their colours to the Meghan mast (which is fair enough) so why shouldn't Starmer? You normally complain at Starmer for sitting on the fence-Sir Abstainalot! I am not sure whether it is sensible or foolish....yet. Only time will tell. Don't forget the pendulum swung against the establishment Royals after Diana's Bashir interview.
My GP, when COVID started, went to work putting her vulnerable patients on every list and system. Did several rounds of trawling through the patient list to make sure that everyone was included....
Another local GP vanished, apart from appearing on the local borough chat board to complain about things.... A picture of the mail piling up inside his surgery glass front door made the local chat board. Then he vanished again....
If you are of A Certain Age, you look at the Queen and see royalty as a life of privelige and quiet duty, being uncontroversial and opening sports centres. And H and M have broken the rules. Cast them out.
If you are younger, you see Andrew and Edward and think "Quiet duty? Chinny reckon." And you think that Harry somehow has to create a better life path for redundant spare heirs, he can't do worse than his uncles, and if he has found happiness in marriage, good on him.
Maybe Britain came to terms with the 1960s, because the changes were so in-your-face that it had no choice but to confront it. Something happened to society in the Blair-Cameron years, but I don't know what. We do seem to still be fighting over it, though. And until we work out what, we can't collectively move on.
Had the starting announcement been all public sector pay is frozen, but to thank our hardworking nurses they will be given a 10% bonus on their salary, I think that would have gone down far better.
A 1% pay rise satisfies nobody. It kind of says "why bother". Which is a shame as its above inflation, inflation is sub 1% right now. Had there been 2.9% inflation and a 3% pay rise it wouldn't have sounded so bad but would have been no more generous.
GPS don't like second hand orders from hospital specialists along the line of "tell your GP to do this". It really gets their back up.
Conceivably an immune disorder could be a contraindication to immunisation, particularly with a live vaccine. It is reasonable for a GP to defer to someone else if this is unclear.
What the Consultant should have done is to write to the GP, clarifying the nature of the condition, and that there is no contraindication to vaccination, and a recommendation that the patient is classified in group 6.
Flying off the handle at the slightest problem is not generally the best way to get things done, and indeed often counterproductive.
Be your best self.
And we know how that played out.
At that time then the actual recommendation will become known, and of course it will have an effect across the four nations, so I just cannot see why a 1% rise is assumed
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-claim-500-thank-you-23286603
The UK Government doesn't get the tax, the Scottish Government does, so the UK Government advised the Scottish Government to uprate for tax - they would then get the tax back so it would go through at £500 net of tax.
It's okay, though, I'm in the 45+ group so don't expect to have to wait too many more weeks anyway. So I'm not going to pester.
--AS
Indeed glad that so many of us have survived the plague year. It could have been much worse.
If so, touch wood that continues. As you said could have been much worse.