Harry and Meghan's main complaint is Meghan's treatment by the tabloids, not the alleged racism of the royal family. It has been all along. It seems to me unsurprising that the tabloids would focus almost entirely on the apparent besmirching of the good name of the royal family rather than the running sore of the tabloids' shoddy treatment of Meghan. I guess the couple's mistake was to give the tabloids the excuse to conveniently set aside the substance of the complaint against them (the tabloids) and focus on an entirely speculative story about who may or may not be a bit dodgy on race in the royal family.
If that's true then they should have directed all of their ire at the tabloids and made clear that they had no bone to pick with the royal family, but it wasn't for them and they weren't enjoying it as a result.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
Procurement is contractual however
The UK and US each spent 7 times more per capita on Covid vaccine R&D than the EU. The EU under invested and then tried to argue about how much it was paying for the jabs. That is indefensible.
The EU made mistakes with its procurement.
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
You do realise that the UK contributed more than 10% of the Horizon funding in 2020? Which is not included in the calculations of UK support for vaccine development. So including that as an argument for 'EU' funding of vaccine R&D seems a little disingenuous.
The fact is that the EU does not and did not pull its weight on this and has no right to moan about the way things have gone now.
On topic, it won't be this that damages/ends the monarchy.
Prince Andrew has the potential to do that, and the fact firm seems to be more angry at the Sussexeses for this interview than Andrew's interview.
As I understand they've launched an investigation in the Duchess of Sussex's bullying but not a single one into the behaviour of the Duke of York.
What’s the point of an investigation when we already know all the answers?
Investigations like these help enrich the legal profession, so that's a good point in carrying out these investigations.
You touting for business, TSE?
(Incidentally Richard, yes, I have been absent during the day due to being back at school. Hope your family have been able to reintegrate smoothly. The process the government insist on has been a complete mess.)
Very smoothly for us. My son hated the idea of going back but as the school have very successfully been running a full timetable remotely, on the surface at least the transition has been pretty seamless for pupils and parents. I suspect that for the staff it is a case of the swan swimming serenely whilst paddling frantically beneath the surface.
My son finds it difficult to keep up in some face to face lessons but has thrived in the remote learning environment so in some ways I am sad to see him go back to school. He also sees his friends less at school at the moment because of restrictions. It was much easier to chat with them online when everyone was at home.
I know of one family where the remote learning sessions were the parents' first indication how much their child was struggling in the ordinary school environment. They've followed through and have been able to transfer the child to a special school which is much more suitable.
Wouldn't be surprising if this had happened to several children, so some plus factors to set against all those who have been hard hit by lack of in-person school.
Harry and Meghan's main complaint is Meghan's treatment by the tabloids, not the alleged racism of the royal family. It has been all along. It seems to me unsurprising that the tabloids would focus almost entirely on the apparent besmirching of the good name of the royal family rather than the running sore of the tabloids' shoddy treatment of Meghan. I guess the couple's mistake was to give the tabloids the excuse to conveniently set aside the substance of the complaint against them (the tabloids) and focus on an entirely speculative story about who may or may not be a bit dodgy on race in the royal family.
If that's true then they should have directed all of their ire at the tabloids and made clear that they had no bone to pick with the royal family, but it wasn't for them and they weren't enjoying it as a result.
But, they didn't.
Their complaint that no one said anything to the papers to behave is a fair one (though, why Harry didn't do it himself, I don't know).
But the problem is that she went nuclear with the skin colour claim.
It's had serious political consequences and to defuse it:
(1) Prince Harry needs to release a statement saying that this has been blown out of all proportion, and on reflection he might have read far too much into a passing comment of curiosity made many years ago - his family are welcoming and work hard to be welcoming and inclusive to everyone (2) The Royal Household needs to orchestrate a campaign of commonwealth leaders, ex commonwealth leaders, and dignitaries, around the world going on the record to say how hard HMQ, Charles and other royals have worked to unite people regardless of race, religion and background, and how generous they've been to them personally
Then, some of the damage might be repaired.
I don't know - wouldn't all that trouble look more like confirming that there's an issue?
The aim should really be to shut the Sussexes up by mutual consent, or failing that, discredit them completely so that people are less and less interested each time they decide to get some more column inches by telling more tales of royal racist woe.
If it came to the latter, I'd suggest A) If the Meghan bullying allegations are true, ensuring that information enters the public domain, and the victims are rightly compensated B ) If Archiegate is overblown, this should also enter the public domain
There's an issue already with the allegations and the damage is done.
The time for totally ignoring it is past now, sadly. Some myths are taking root that could damage the royal family and the reputation of the UK as a result, and that requires rebuttal action I'm afraid.
- There is the bump in cases from the school testing among the 0-14 group - 85+ are now as likely to get COVID as children - 65-85+ numbers are falling faster than everyone else - vaccination effect.
Harry and Meghan's main complaint is Meghan's treatment by the tabloids, not the alleged racism of the royal family. It has been all along. It seems to me unsurprising that the tabloids would focus almost entirely on the apparent besmirching of the good name of the royal family rather than the running sore of the tabloids' shoddy treatment of Meghan. I guess the couple's mistake was to give the tabloids the excuse to conveniently set aside the substance of the complaint against them (the tabloids) and focus on an entirely speculative story about who may or may not be a bit dodgy on race in the royal family.
If that's true then they should have directed all of their ire at the tabloids and made clear that they had no bone to pick with the royal family, but it wasn't for them and they weren't enjoying it as a result.
But, they didn't.
Their complaint that no one said anything to the papers to behave is a fair one (though, why Harry didn't do it himself, I don't know).
But the problem is that she went nuclear with the skin colour claim.
Maybe that's the American (and particularly Californian) way.
My wife volunteers at a vaccine centre. I said previously their shifts were massively ramping up. That started today. Tomorrow’s numbers might be the start of something big.
Who cares what Americans think about our royal family? They got rid of them 250 years ago. They don't care what we think of their Presidents.
Notable partisan divide though, Democrats think the royals are racist, Republicans think they are not
This steers to an obvious point and I'll make it since I don't think anybody else has. As per the "Is the BBC left wing?" question, the answers will be skewed (and unfortunately not in a measurable way) by the innate bias of the respondents. In this case, not their politics directly but by how racist they are.
People who are pretty racist themselves will almost always self-report that they are not. Sometimes with a rhetorical flourish. "Not a racist bone in their bodies" being the default there. And often they will truly believe this. Whether they do or they don't, it means that when asked whether they think something is racist, they will tend to say "no", even if to somebody who is truly not racist, or much less racist, it patently is.
This, I suggest, explains much of the Republican/Democrat split in this poll.
Funnily enough, certainly amongst the Republican commentators, Harry is getting more flak than Meghan who is seen as merely trying to ingratiate herself into the woke aristocracy. He is seen as a patsy who lets his wife trash his family.
Yes, I can imagine that take in those quarters. A real man doesn't let his woman lead him by the nose. He's lives strong. He lives free.
My wife volunteers at a vaccine centre. I said previously their shifts were massively ramping up. That started today. Tomorrow’s numbers might be the start of something big.
Is it a clever plan to import no voters? Perhaps be can add in a change to the law to allow you to register where you work and have half a million of them notionally work there?
Harry and Meghan's main complaint is Meghan's treatment by the tabloids, not the alleged racism of the royal family. It has been all along. It seems to me unsurprising that the tabloids would focus almost entirely on the apparent besmirching of the good name of the royal family rather than the running sore of the tabloids' shoddy treatment of Meghan. I guess the couple's mistake was to give the tabloids the excuse to conveniently set aside the substance of the complaint against them (the tabloids) and focus on an entirely speculative story about who may or may not be a bit dodgy on race in the royal family.
Very much agree. It's no shock horror at all - least to me - if one or two members of the Royals are not wholly free of racism, but certain sections of the press, oh god.
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
That's quite the drop for Meghan and Harry, over the course of three years.
Which, they would put down entirely to unfavourable press coverage.
Never their own actions or behaviour.
I find it remarkable that there is an implication in your post that H and M have behaved " badly". Now moving on let's talk about Prince Andrew, and on a lower scale altogether, but nonetheless a reprehensible track record of infidelity while married, Prince Charles. Undoubtedly, men behaving badly.
They have indeed behaved not just badly but disgracefully. Your Whataboutism is pointless here. Andrew should indeed be hung out to dry for his actions but that in no way excuses the way the Sussexes have behaved.
One can also have some sympathy for how H&M have been treated, without thinking their behaviour acceptable.
- There is the bump in cases from the school testing among the 0-14 group - 85+ are now as likely to get COVID as children - 65-85+ numbers are falling faster than everyone else - vaccination effect.
The increase in cases amongst children is still relatively modest at the end of the first week, which is important. If it doesn't get any worse then the likelihood of April 12th being delayed by excessive panic over R is, presumably, very much reduced.
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
Procurement is contractual however
The UK and US each spent 7 times more per capita on Covid vaccine R&D than the EU. The EU under invested and then tried to argue about how much it was paying for the jabs. That is indefensible.
The EU made mistakes with its procurement.
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
Evidence for that assertion please.
I suspect (and it's just a suspicion) that almost every vaccine programme will have taken money at some point from the Wellcome Trust, Horizon, regional development agencies, the UK government, and various others. That's the nature of something that was - until recently - pretty unfashionable, and where researchers will have spent their time grubbing for grants.
But having taken (at some point, and for some portion of related research) money from Horizon is very far from Horizon having been the - or even a - major funder.
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
Tory backbenchers solidly behind mining jobs and northern Labour MPs rubbishing them.....If you live long enough you see the lot. But look no further for understanding the Tory Northern Wall
Is it a clever plan to import no voters? Perhaps be can add in a change to the law to allow you to register where you work and have half a million of them notionally work there?
It looks a good idea to me - why should everything be focused in London? Can pretty much work anywhere across the UK with tech nowadays.
I’d probably go further and split up most of the functions across the UK, keeping no.10 on Whitehall
Is it a clever plan to import no voters? Perhaps be can add in a change to the law to allow you to register where you work and have half a million of them notionally work there?
It looks a good idea to me - why should everything be focused in London? Can pretty much work anywhere across the UK with tech nowadays.
I’d probably go further and split up most of the functions across the UK, keeping no.10 on Whitehall
But if you're going to take that view, you also have to say that business owners should be able to have the sovereign choice not to employee or serve people who haven't been vaccinated.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
That's quite the drop for Meghan and Harry, over the course of three years.
Which, they would put down entirely to unfavourable press coverage.
Never their own actions or behaviour.
I find it remarkable that there is an implication in your post that H and M have behaved " badly". Now moving on let's talk about Prince Andrew, and on a lower scale altogether, but nonetheless a reprehensible track record of infidelity while married, Prince Charles. Undoubtedly, men behaving badly.
They have indeed behaved not just badly but disgracefully. Your Whataboutism is pointless here. Andrew should indeed be hung out to dry for his actions but that in no way excuses the way the Sussexes have behaved.
One can also have some sympathy for how H&M have been treated, without thinking their behaviour acceptable.
The press stories (Mail and Express) are often bizarre and have a peculiar slant. I don't think it's racistly motivated; I think it was the same with Diana and people like Selina Scott. I am surprised that readers go for this sort of thing really. However, I am not in favour of 'action' being taken, because that would almost certainly be a curtailment of a free press, and on balance I prefer to live in a country where wealthy celebrities endure unfair and sometimes cruel criticism to a country where they are considered immune from it.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
But if you're going to take that view, you also have to say that business owners should be able to have the sovereign choice not to employee or serve people who haven't been vaccinated.
And that's where Lozza falls down.
Exactly, he should be challenged on this aspect, businesses are run by private individuals and they should be able to run them as they see fit and this can include refusing customers who haven't been vaccinated once all adults have been offered it.
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Despatch a messenger to inform them that you only use the internet for PB. Standards must be upheld.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I'm not close to it this time, but I wonder if there is a plan to send out questionnaires to those who do not respond by, say, 25 March?
If you just wait, you might find they send you a questionnaire in the post like in 2011.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I thought they tested this out and the overwhelming majority of people prefered to complete the census online.
I guess with a pandemic on they'd much rather do it digitally.
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
Tory backbenchers solidly behind mining jobs and northern Labour MPs rubbishing them.....If you live long enough you see the lot. But look no further for understanding the Tory Northern Wall
Keir will have to wave A LOT of union flags around to compensate for this.
Actually, I think the EU will do fine, just as the UK would have done fine if the EU hadn't helpfully provided us with their early vaccines. There are plenty of vaccines coming down the pike everywhere and once you have vaccinated your own people you are relaxed about allowing your supply to go to other countries.
The eu didnt provide us with anything Pfizer provided us with the vaccines we had contracted for. Simple as that
The EU acted against its own interest in not securing those vaccine doses. The point I am making is that UK success, defined as being quicker than other countries, particularly the EU, depends on the EU not securing its own supply.
Fine. The UK was lucky and people in the EU are pissed off, hence Charles Michel's pretence that it was act of international sovereignty rather than EU incompetence. Nobody is buying that.
If the EU had been more competent, the UK would have had 3 million doses rather than 11 million in February, but domestic supply would ramp up and a couple of months later the UK would have plenty of supply, just as the EU looks like it will have plenty of supply. So what's the big deal?
The further comment I would make is that the lesson people will take from this is that the vaccine programme success demonstrates "the superiority of the Brexit system" (old Communist terminology). But as it is something of a prisoners' dilemma, I should also mention the unspoken more fundamental truth of that analogy: if you are going to betray your fellow prisoners make sure you get away and never see them again, otherwise they will beat you up. Brexit, at least of the aggressive kind pursued by our government, only works as a strategy if you never have any dependencies on the EU. January's truly grim trade figures show the limitations of that approach.
I think it would have been perfectly possible to do an EU version of the elements of supply chain and distribution infrastructure that was done here across the EU-27, but one crucial mistake was that the EU-programme focus was on *buying* vaccines (that did not exist yet) like packs of bulk sausages from Aldi, whereas on this occasion the focus should have been on *creating* vaccines.
For me that is the biggest failure in this.
And because EC believe in a sort of moral superiority, it has been floudering and hitting out everywhere rather than realising that the "halo" is just a projection.
I disagree with you on this, however. The constraint with early vaccine supply everywhere is limited production capacity, not investment. The UK "bought up" early EU supplies ahead of the EU itself. That's why it had those 8 million extra doses in February that weren't available to the EU. The hundreds of millions of doses that will turn up in Q2 do come from investment - they are not produced within existing capacity - but by then hopefully there won't be any quantity constraints,
Gosh don't you talk a total load of bollocks, the UK invested in setting up manufacturers too it didn't just buy up vaccine supplies
Hmm.
The UK invested in production facilities through its contracts, hence the many millions of domestically produced doses coming on stream that I referred to. The EU has done the same.
However the 8 million doses supplied from the EU in February, against 11 million doses administered, would have gone to EU use if the EC had been more effective in securing its supply. I am OK with this, not least because I am hoping to get a vaccination soon.
That's not actually true. One of the criticisms of the EU by the vaccine manufacturers is that they were unwilling to invest in R&D over and above the actual cost of the vaccines. The UK and US spent many, many times more on R&D than the EU during 2020. It was not just about price per shot it was actual up front investment in the R&D. Something the EU were unwilling to do.
Three out of the six vaccines that are authorised or are pending authorisation by western regulators were developed in EU located labs. I don't think that's an accident. All those labs received EU Horizon funding over years, as did Oxford University prior to the UK leaving the EU. Which is great and clearly a benefit to mankind.
Procurement is contractual however
The UK and US each spent 7 times more per capita on Covid vaccine R&D than the EU. The EU under invested and then tried to argue about how much it was paying for the jabs. That is indefensible.
The EU made mistakes with its procurement.
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
Evidence for that assertion please.
I suspect (and it's just a suspicion) that almost every vaccine programme will have taken money at some point from the Wellcome Trust, Horizon, regional development agencies, the UK government, and various others. That's the nature of something that was - until recently - pretty unfashionable, and where researchers will have spent their time grubbing for grants.
But having taken (at some point, and for some portion of related research) money from Horizon is very far from Horizon having been the - or even a - major funder.
Yes, H2020 is such a wide ranging programme that I'd be surprised if the successful vaccines developed in Europe (AZ, Pfizer, Valneva and CureVac) all got some level of funding from the programme. I know that the major funding for CureVax and BioNTech came from the German state and for AZ the funding for the Jenner institute is mostly domestic via the Wellcome Trust and the state. It would be interesting to see what the percentage of funding for each of the vaccines actually is, maybe I'll set a junior on the task next week. 🤔
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I thought they tested this out and the overwhelming majority of people prefered to complete the census online.
I guess with a pandemic on they'd much rather do it digitally.
It will be interesting to see if compliance decreases. But given it has always simply been a legal obligation to complete it in the manner instructed, and instruction includes possible hard copy completion, what outrage could be sustained?
I've half a mind to complain it is not in my preferred font - Garamond.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
It must be different in Wales, we received the hard copy to fill in with an option to go online with the same internet code.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
They have the freehold, the issue isn't as much the cladding as the amount of wood used.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Ironic in a post to an Internet forum... You’re not the only one - my mother in law was railing against it the other night. She also insists on using ‘real’ money, and not paying by card.
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
They have the freehold, the issue isn't as much the cladding as the amount of wood used.
Whatever, someone signed it off and that wouldn't have been the club.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
RE: AstraZeneca rubbishing. Not generally one for conspiracies - but does anyone wonder if somewhere under the radar there is the influence of the other vaccine makers at play? How convenient that the cheap vaccine being offered at cost is getting such a bad press around the world...
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
They have the freehold, the issue isn't as much the cladding as the amount of wood used.
Whatever, someone signed it off and that wouldn't have been the club.
Creasey said: “It feels pretty galling that you have individuals who are millionaires and a billionaire club driving past your front door every day while you sit there in a worthless fire trap.”
Companies owned by Arsenal FC’s parent firm Arsenal Holdings Limited are the named freeholders of both sites. The hub and two blocks of the Queensland Road flats which contain affordable homes are leased by the housing association charity, Newlon. Highbury Square Management Company is the leaseholder for the flats built in Arsenal’s former home.
Companies House documents show that Arsenal’s chief financial officer Stuart Wiseley and life president Ken Friar have stepped down as directors of the Highbury Square Management Committee in the last year. It is understood that this is due to a conflict of interest.
Arsenal’s property arm, Ashburton Trading Limited, sold two blocks of the Queensland Road development to Newlon for £22.3 million in February 2010 on a long-term lease to become affordable, shared ownership homes (whereby you have a mortgage for between 25 and 75 per cent of the home’s value and pay rent on the remaining share).
At the time, Arsenal’s then-chief executive Ivan Gazidis said: “This is another important milestone for our property business which has provided a consistent flow of income over recent years. This money has been an important factor at a time when we have been building our capability to drive commercial revenues.”
According to Companies House documents, Gazidis was previously a director at Ashburton Trading Limited, while Arsenal life president Lord Harris of Peckham and Wiseley are current directors.
The Queensland Road development was opened in November 2014, with then-Arsenal goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez and former director Friar attending a ribbon-cutting presentation.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
They have the freehold, the issue isn't as much the cladding as the amount of wood used.
Whatever, someone signed it off and that wouldn't have been the club.
Creasey said: “It feels pretty galling that you have individuals who are millionaires and a billionaire club driving past your front door every day while you sit there in a worthless fire trap.”
Companies owned by Arsenal FC’s parent firm Arsenal Holdings Limited are the named freeholders of both sites. The hub and two blocks of the Queensland Road flats which contain affordable homes are leased by the housing association charity, Newlon. Highbury Square Management Company is the leaseholder for the flats built in Arsenal’s former home.
Companies House documents show that Arsenal’s chief financial officer Stuart Wiseley and life president Ken Friar have stepped down as directors of the Highbury Square Management Committee in the last year. It is understood that this is due to a conflict of interest.
Arsenal’s property arm, Ashburton Trading Limited, sold two blocks of the Queensland Road development to Newlon for £22.3 million in February 2010 on a long-term lease to become affordable, shared ownership homes (whereby you have a mortgage for between 25 and 75 per cent of the home’s value and pay rent on the remaining share).
At the time, Arsenal’s then-chief executive Ivan Gazidis said: “This is another important milestone for our property business which has provided a consistent flow of income over recent years. This money has been an important factor at a time when we have been building our capability to drive commercial revenues.”
According to Companies House documents, Gazidis was previously a director at Ashburton Trading Limited, while Arsenal life president Lord Harris of Peckham and Wiseley are current directors.
The Queensland Road development was opened in November 2014, with then-Arsenal goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez and former director Friar attending a ribbon-cutting presentation.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Given that census information forms the basis of national funding to local councils, an attitude of not filling it in is a very altruistic act on behalf of the rest of the country.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
What i am surprised about is the lack of public advertising i've seen on it. I'm sure we're normally bombarded with adverts on radio, tv and in public places for about a month beforehand. Possibly i've just not noticed it.
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
They have the freehold, the issue isn't as much the cladding as the amount of wood used.
Whatever, someone signed it off and that wouldn't have been the club.
Creasey said: “It feels pretty galling that you have individuals who are millionaires and a billionaire club driving past your front door every day while you sit there in a worthless fire trap.”
Companies owned by Arsenal FC’s parent firm Arsenal Holdings Limited are the named freeholders of both sites. The hub and two blocks of the Queensland Road flats which contain affordable homes are leased by the housing association charity, Newlon. Highbury Square Management Company is the leaseholder for the flats built in Arsenal’s former home.
Companies House documents show that Arsenal’s chief financial officer Stuart Wiseley and life president Ken Friar have stepped down as directors of the Highbury Square Management Committee in the last year. It is understood that this is due to a conflict of interest.
Arsenal’s property arm, Ashburton Trading Limited, sold two blocks of the Queensland Road development to Newlon for £22.3 million in February 2010 on a long-term lease to become affordable, shared ownership homes (whereby you have a mortgage for between 25 and 75 per cent of the home’s value and pay rent on the remaining share).
At the time, Arsenal’s then-chief executive Ivan Gazidis said: “This is another important milestone for our property business which has provided a consistent flow of income over recent years. This money has been an important factor at a time when we have been building our capability to drive commercial revenues.”
According to Companies House documents, Gazidis was previously a director at Ashburton Trading Limited, while Arsenal life president Lord Harris of Peckham and Wiseley are current directors.
The Queensland Road development was opened in November 2014, with then-Arsenal goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez and former director Friar attending a ribbon-cutting presentation.
And? The government is to blame for this mess, not Arsenal.
Arsenal ordered and sold properties that included 'the presence of unsafe cladding, timber balconies or missing fire breaks designed to slow the spread of fire.'
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
A more interesting point to me is about the Horizon programme. If it funded research that led to four out of the six main vaccines, and the companies concerned do appear to credit the programme, that's a huge success and one we don't really hear about. I am not talking about EU good/bad/whatever. The programme itself really seems to have delivered !
Evidence for that assertion please.
I suspect (and it's just a suspicion) that almost every vaccine programme will have taken money at some point from the Wellcome Trust, Horizon, regional development agencies, the UK government, and various others. That's the nature of something that was - until recently - pretty unfashionable, and where researchers will have spent their time grubbing for grants.
But having taken (at some point, and for some portion of related research) money from Horizon is very far from Horizon having been the - or even a - major funder.
Agree that funding is a hand-to-mouth exercise for all research institutes. Having looked into this a bit, Horizon is given major credit for funding primary research at the relevant institutes in these links for Jenner Institute, Bio-N-Tech and Janssen Laboratories/J&J, although the latter also got a lot of funding from the US government. Curevac got its original funding from the EU, but most of its primary research in recent years seems to have been funded by Bill Gates. It did get development funding from Horizon however.
Should add the important point that it is entirely because these labs did the unfashionable research for years that they were able to step in to get the vaccines developed in record time.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
Why should Arsenal pay for the failings of others? Ultimately the government will have to cough up the money if it wants to fix the problem. If the government doesn't want to do that, they should allow the cladding to stay on existing buildings.
They have the freehold, the issue isn't as much the cladding as the amount of wood used.
Whatever, someone signed it off and that wouldn't have been the club.
Creasey said: “It feels pretty galling that you have individuals who are millionaires and a billionaire club driving past your front door every day while you sit there in a worthless fire trap.”
Companies owned by Arsenal FC’s parent firm Arsenal Holdings Limited are the named freeholders of both sites. The hub and two blocks of the Queensland Road flats which contain affordable homes are leased by the housing association charity, Newlon. Highbury Square Management Company is the leaseholder for the flats built in Arsenal’s former home.
Companies House documents show that Arsenal’s chief financial officer Stuart Wiseley and life president Ken Friar have stepped down as directors of the Highbury Square Management Committee in the last year. It is understood that this is due to a conflict of interest.
Arsenal’s property arm, Ashburton Trading Limited, sold two blocks of the Queensland Road development to Newlon for £22.3 million in February 2010 on a long-term lease to become affordable, shared ownership homes (whereby you have a mortgage for between 25 and 75 per cent of the home’s value and pay rent on the remaining share).
At the time, Arsenal’s then-chief executive Ivan Gazidis said: “This is another important milestone for our property business which has provided a consistent flow of income over recent years. This money has been an important factor at a time when we have been building our capability to drive commercial revenues.”
According to Companies House documents, Gazidis was previously a director at Ashburton Trading Limited, while Arsenal life president Lord Harris of Peckham and Wiseley are current directors.
The Queensland Road development was opened in November 2014, with then-Arsenal goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez and former director Friar attending a ribbon-cutting presentation.
And? The government is to blame for this mess, not Arsenal.
Arsenal ordered and sold properties that included 'the presence of unsafe cladding, timber balconies or missing fire breaks designed to slow the spread of fire.'
They started this mess.
Nope. The buildings would have been signed off by a safety inspector. The club is not to blame.
As horrible as Grenfell was, the government should not have made the properties worthless without coughing up the dough to fix the problem.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Given that census information forms the basis of national funding to local councils, an attitude of not filling it in is a very altruistic act on behalf of the rest of the country.
Oh well maybe they should I don't know look at people paying council tax or something + children in local schools. probably a better value to use . They don't need it, just civil servants with no purpose justifying their pensions
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
The reason I knew someone would raise the objection is I know various people, who use the internet regularly, who nevertheless raise objection to being asked to do things online rather than by hard copy. Some of those have temporarily accepted completing things online as a result of Covid, but others have stuck to their guns where they are able to require a hard copy of things on request. So there is a core of people, able but unwilling to do things online if asked, but also angry about even being asked.
And if you are permitted to demand something by hard copy, well, that's your right. There are things I prefer to do hard copy too.
So if you want it, that is fine. But when those objectors use the 'not everyone uses the internet' argument, it's disingenuous, as they are putting their objection, which has nothing to do with their own ability to use the internet, into the mouths of other people, people who have been catered for.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
I had a feeling there would be some reactions like this, and I cannot say I really understand it. What if someone had received a hard copy and said they equally resented the assumption that people wish to use a hard copy for this? Would their resentment be less reasonable than your resentment? Is a hard copy census a god given right?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
Can you think why in current circumstances handing a paper copy to a collector might not be a good idea?
It can be done with care - in the same way I took delivery of beer this afternoon. Alternatively I am happy to return by post.
And why should your personal preference, when alternative methods exist for other people, trump public safety considerations or require so much additional cost to no additional benefit in terms of compliance?
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
He regularly posts here so clearly has no problem with using the internet. It is not clear to me what the fuss is. If someone doesn't have access to the internet, they can request the paper copy. What's the big deal?
The reason I knew someone would raise the objection is I know various people, who use the internet regularly, who nevertheless raise objection to being asked to do things online rather than by hard copy. Some of those have temporarily accepted completing things online as a result of Covid, but others have stuck to their guns where they are able to require a hard copy of things on request. So there is a core of people, able but unwilling to do things online if asked, but also angry about even being asked.
And if you are permitted to demand something by hard copy, well, that's your right. There are things I prefer to do hard copy too.
So if you want it, that is fine. But when those objectors use the 'not everyone uses the internet' argument, it's disingenuous, as they are putting their objection, which has nothing to do with their own ability to use the internet, into the mouths of other people, people who have been catered for.
Agree with that if you don't want to do it dont do it and state that dont make excuses why you won't
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
What i am surprised about is the lack of public advertising i've seen on it. I'm sure we're normally bombarded with adverts on radio, tv and in public places for about a month beforehand. Possibly i've just not noticed it.
Indeed, it was so quiet I genuinely thought it wasn’t happening.
I heard one ad on Classic FM driving to work earlier this week. Not since, but then I normally listen to music on my phone so that’s hardly conclusive.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
You are rather assuming there that government machinery is capable of drawing simple conclusions from disparate sources of raw data.
Recent experience suggests this is a very bold assumption.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
What i am surprised about is the lack of public advertising i've seen on it. I'm sure we're normally bombarded with adverts on radio, tv and in public places for about a month beforehand. Possibly i've just not noticed it.
Indeed, it was so quiet I genuinely thought it wasn’t happening.
I heard one ad on Classic FM driving to work earlier this week. Not since, but then I normally listen to music on my phone so that’s hardly conclusive.
Interestingly and a sort of side point sort of. I wouldn't even know there was a census if I hadn't read about it here. I don't watch tv, dont listen to radio and don't read newpapers
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Ok. So you shouldn't use or even look at any stats that come from it then. If you do you're a raving hypocrite.
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
Well the government knows when I was born they have my birth certificate. From that they can work out my age gender and name. They have my income tax records so they know how much I earn.They don't have my death certificate so they are fairly sure I haven't died.....why exactly do I need to repeat this to them because I am not telling them anything else about me. They can fuck off unless they pay me to fill out their pointless piece of paper
You seem a bit sensitive about this, and I wouldn't wish to censor your feelings. But there's no sense in us getting incensed in any sense by the census which they sent us despite the lack of cents for us...
Pfft not incensed, I just don't really see the point in filling in paperwork to tell them things they already know so won't bother
Well it's not things they already know. And even to the extent that information is available it's not held in one place. The whole point of a census, if filled in as intended, is it provides a complete and comprehensive picture of the population at a single point in time. It will capture people who move transiently about from place to place, who aren't easily captured by other data collection, who have little general contact with society, and will avoid duplication or omission that would otherwise inevitably occur through trying to piece together information from other information sources.
But clearly you're not going to be convinced, so no point in trying.
I am not best pleased to receive a letter from the Census Office inviting me to complete the survey online - or to ring a freephone line to request a hard copy. Deeply resent the assumption that people wish to use the Internet for this. Frankly unless the hard copy is provided in the normal way, they can sing for their supper!
Why bother havent done a census ever
You don't see it as a public duty then.
Not in the least no
Although it carries a fine of up to £1k. So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
Shrugs yet to be fined and lets face it the whole thing is a joke unless you really think we have half a million jedi's
That's hardly the only information the emerges, and it's a voluntary question anyway, so some useful info may well be gleaned.
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
As I replied to Kinablu the only thing I would tell them is what they already know so its pointless
I had heard it is considered that in future there won't be censuses for the very reason all the info will be able to be compiled from other sources. Interesting if that is the case.
They said that in 2011 and 2001.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.
Comments
But, they didn't.
The fact is that the EU does not and did not pull its weight on this and has no right to moan about the way things have gone now.
Wouldn't be surprising if this had happened to several children, so some plus factors to set against all those who have been hard hit by lack of in-person school.
But the problem is that she went nuclear with the skin colour claim.
The time for totally ignoring it is past now, sadly. Some myths are taking root that could damage the royal family and the reputation of the UK as a result, and that requires rebuttal action I'm afraid.
- There is the bump in cases from the school testing among the 0-14 group
- 85+ are now as likely to get COVID as children
- 65-85+ numbers are falling faster than everyone else - vaccination effect.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1370430542047547393?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-33325142
Ed Miliband has said the government's failure to provide more funding for a South Yorkshire colliery is "wrong".
Hatfield Colliery near Doncaster announced on Monday it would close unexpectedly at the end of the week - instead of a managed closure next summer - with the loss of 430 jobs.
Doncaster North MP and former Labour leader Mr Miliband said it was a "harsh decision, not a one nation decision."
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1370104263943282690
PS. Good luck!
What a clown
But having taken (at some point, and for some portion of related research) money from Horizon is very far from Horizon having been the - or even a - major funder.
I’d probably go further and split up most of the functions across the UK, keeping no.10 on Whitehall
I’d probably go further and split up most of the functions across the UK, keeping no.10 on Whitehall
But if you're going to take that view, you also have to say that business owners should be able to have the sovereign choice not to employee or serve people who haven't been vaccinated.
And that's where Lozza falls down.
Is it lockdown?
So long as the information is collected in the usual way and people are able to fill it in offline if they wish, what exactly is there to resent?
It's not as though they are taking a choice away from you. You never had a choice about how to fill out a census, other than in ways the government said you could. They are encouraging it to be in a different way without prohibiting the other.
If you just wait, you might find they send you a questionnaire in the post like in 2011.
https://twitter.com/oldnorthroad/status/1370403555287445504?s=21
I guess with a pandemic on they'd much rather do it digitally.
I've told her it's almost certainly bollocks but it seems that confirmation bias on an already heavily sledged vaccine is doing all the work there.
https://ewnews.com/bad-batch-several-eu-countries-suspend-use-of-a-batch-of-astrazeneca-after-reports-of-blood-clotting
I've half a mind to complain it is not in my preferred font - Garamond.
I bet they spend more on Willian.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9351827/Arsenal-football-club-responsibility-fire-trap-flats-says-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
Where's "sod off" ?
Damn.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1370446996197236737
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1370430542047547393?s=20
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1370438317351833601?s=20
You’re not the only one - my mother in law was railing against it the other night. She also insists on using ‘real’ money, and not paying by card.
Just a thought
So I wouldn't broadcast it too widely.
I'm surprised how cross this has made me, but your objections, despite having the initial figleaf of regard for the public (albeit a nonsensical one as those unable to respond online can do so) seems to do with nothing other than arrogant assumption that you had a right to fill out the census in the way you want, and even though you acknowledge you can still do it you are still mad that they would prefer it be another way.
Since the option has not been taken away from anyone, why are you so offended that an alternative option has been offered? Do you get mad when someone brings out a new flavour of crisps because how dare they assume you want the new flavour?
Is the purpose of the census to gather information or to gather it in a way that makes you personally happy? So long as they get the info from us, what does it matter how?
Companies owned by Arsenal FC’s parent firm Arsenal Holdings Limited are the named freeholders of both sites. The hub and two blocks of the Queensland Road flats which contain affordable homes are leased by the housing association charity, Newlon. Highbury Square Management Company is the leaseholder for the flats built in Arsenal’s former home.
Companies House documents show that Arsenal’s chief financial officer Stuart Wiseley and life president Ken Friar have stepped down as directors of the Highbury Square Management Committee in the last year. It is understood that this is due to a conflict of interest.
Arsenal’s property arm, Ashburton Trading Limited, sold two blocks of the Queensland Road development to Newlon for £22.3 million in February 2010 on a long-term lease to become affordable, shared ownership homes (whereby you have a mortgage for between 25 and 75 per cent of the home’s value and pay rent on the remaining share).
At the time, Arsenal’s then-chief executive Ivan Gazidis said: “This is another important milestone for our property business which has provided a consistent flow of income over recent years. This money has been an important factor at a time when we have been building our capability to drive commercial revenues.”
According to Companies House documents, Gazidis was previously a director at Ashburton Trading Limited, while Arsenal life president Lord Harris of Peckham and Wiseley are current directors.
The Queensland Road development was opened in November 2014, with then-Arsenal goalkeeper Emiliano Martinez and former director Friar attending a ribbon-cutting presentation.
https://theathletic.com/2437217/2021/03/10/worthless-fire-traps-the-emirates-and-highbury-flats-arsenal-wont-fix/
I like doing it. It makes me feel important and a part of this country that I love.
I object to their assumption that people have access to the internet - or indeed a telephone. Happy to complete and hand to a collector in line with past practice - or to send via post.
They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference. They've also assumed that people sent it are literate, are you offended on behalf of the illiterate as well? Are you assuming everyone who receives it is well enough to take the hard copy to a post box? They have provided those who do not have access to the internet the means to complete it.
Your objection is therefore completely nonsensical as it isn't about people being left out, it is purely that you don't like the means by which they have asked for it to be filled out.
The government mandates how we are supposed to carry out the census. They've provided options, for the very good reason that if it were all online there would be problems, but it was never up to us to fill it out in the manner we would prefer.
You're preferring it to be another way is not a serious or legitimate objection - and that is the reason, since the fact people can fill out a hard copy proves they have not made the assumption you claim they have, indeed it proves the opposite, that they have assumed many, but not all, people have internet.
Which is true. Your objection to their 'assumption' is therefore based on a faulty premise about their assumption, and a faulty assumption that the manner of census completion is a matter of personal preference.
But the Census Office does imply that personal preference is relevant - ie complete onlne or ring up for a hard copy. Someone has mentioned that In Wales hard copies have already been sent out. I await my own copy!
I would be interested to know if they ever fine people for not completing the census, as I doubt they expect perfect compliance and as long as they get sufficient compliance for somewhat reliable public policy planning it's likely not worth chasing too hard.
But at least a refusal to fill out the damn thing makes more sense that getting mad on behalf of other people who don't have the internet, even though those people can still fill it out.
They started this mess.
Should add the important point that it is entirely because these labs did the unfashionable research for years that they were able to step in to get the vaccines developed in record time.
As horrible as Grenfell was, the government should not have made the properties worthless without coughing up the dough to fix the problem.
And if you are permitted to demand something by hard copy, well, that's your right. There are things I prefer to do hard copy too.
So if you want it, that is fine. But when those objectors use the 'not everyone uses the internet' argument, it's disingenuous, as they are putting their objection, which has nothing to do with their own ability to use the internet, into the mouths of other people, people who have been catered for.
I heard one ad on Classic FM driving to work earlier this week. Not since, but then I normally listen to music on my phone so that’s hardly conclusive.
Recent experience suggests this is a very bold assumption.
But clearly you're not going to be convinced, so no point in trying.
Apart from anything else, the census isn’t terribly accurate. Lots of HMOs housing illegal immigrants that are apparently inhabited by one old woman and her cats, while supermarkets and pressure on local sewage systems all show there are far more people there than officially recorded.