What’s he’s talking about makes no sense, and wildly exaggerates the issue.
How many women disappear off the streets to be murdered, per year? Single figures across the whole country, no? Every one of them is headline news, because it happens so rarely.
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
As I understand it the mood music out of Europe (especially France) is that these decisions are designed to improve take-up by demonstrating safety is being taken seriously. Whether they are the correct decisions is open to question of course and we have to see whether matters are adversely impacted when they resume with AZ. I think, based on the ractions of the French and Italian regulators who appear to have been blindsided, that if the EMA holds the line (and no reason why they wouldn't) then AZ could restart as early as today.
Yes that might be part of the reason, although I think it's likely to have the opposite effect.
It's also true that since these reports from Austria and Norway etc have been in the news there have been loads of people reporting all kinds of symptoms after getting the AZ vaccine - my wife's German emergency department has had lots of people coming in over the last week. It's a really shit situation.
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
As I understand it the mood music out of Europe (especially France) is that these decisions are designed to improve take-up by demonstrating safety is being taken seriously. Whether they are the correct decisions is open to question of course and we have to see whether matters are adversely impacted when they resume with AZ. I think, based on the ractions of the French and Italian regulators who appear to have been blindsided, that if the EMA holds the line (and no reason why they wouldn't) then AZ could restart as early as today.
While that may be the argument the fact is that the opposite occurs.
Everytime a vaccine is removed from use it makes front page news, when it returns it's announced on the bottom of page 47.
And the anti-vaxxers will only use the original ban to forward their viewpoint not the later correction and reintroduction.
The EU and their member Governments are really doing themselves zero favours here.
Well said.
Plus the same logic applies too. If French or Irish or Italians can say "we're going to stop vaccinating, despite there being no evidence, because of the precautionary principle" then how is that any different to an individual hearing that and later thinking "I'm going to refuse the vaccine, despite there being no evidence, because of the precautionary principle"?
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
No one is saying that it is. No one.
The EU did start the row with AZ through UvdL's idiocy and inability to read a contract. They completely screwed up the commissioning process. The EMA took longer than they should have to approve AZ and certainly added to the "second best" vibe that had already started with their uncertainty about its suitability for older age groups.
But no one is pretending that the current decisions of Germany, France, Italy, Spain and others are the responsibility of anyone but their respective governments. Why do you feel the need to create straw men and straw arguments? I repeat, if the EMA can bring sanity back to these countries' policies I would welcome it. But it will remain the decision of those countries what goes in their citizens arms.
David give me a break. "No one is saying that it is".
Literally everyone on here who has a stated view on this elides the EU and EU Member States. They start from UvdL and the AZN contract and end up blaming "the EU" for Belgium deciding to continue using the vaccine.
You yourself idly wondered if this episode (sovereign nations deciding on their own vaccine policy) would make "those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves".
I am wondering why, after waiting so long for the EMA to make a decision on various vaccines, the various countries that have it as their regulator decide to just ignore them.
Sovereignty?
There is another element to this. Up until Brexit, the MHRA was the de facto EU vaccine regulator and expert. Had we still been members then all the good stuff which we did (eg rolling review, etc) would likely have been utilised by "the EU" also (ie by other Member State regulatory bodies).
So there is a theory that our leaving the EU fucked them. I know people will point out the vaccine expertise of other Member States regulatory bodies but the MHRA was the acknowledged leader in the vaccine field and informed, pre-Brexit, just about all EU vaccine policy.
We offered them medicines regulatory mutual recognition, they declined. 🤷♂️
Yep I get that. Maybe they couldn't carve it out from the rest of the negotiations. My point was, as the ex-MHRA chief said on that key R4 interview (hell if I can find it now) - our/it leaving the EU arguably set back the EU in their vaccine effort given the MHRA's status as de facto EU-wide vaccine regulator.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just place the blame elsewhere. We voted to leave, offered mutual recognition in loads of key areas such as medicines, finance and agricultural standards. The EU thought it could damage the UK by refusing and sending us down the equivalence road so it did that. As we've all realised by now, it was really idiotic thinking from the EU but it's too late now.
I also think the EU severely underestimated how big of a pull factor London/UK is for people. They expected most of the European employees at the EMA to go to Amsterdam but in the end almost all of them took up the option of moving to the MHRA and continuing as if nothing had really changed.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
That's a thoroughly appalling use of statistics. He needs to cite a source for that claim, which looks very dubious given the vagueness of the stat.
Although you're right, let's be honest in acknowledging that the current government are not exactly role models for good and fair use of statistics too...
Since I’ve been assured that no one really wants Indyref2, presumably this is a massive tactical error by the EssEnnPee and should be welcomed by Unionists everywhere.
If the SNP do stand as 'SNP Indyref2' then it may well put off a few voters who are happy to keep Sturgeon as FM but do not want indyref2 anytime soon.
In any case the decision on any meaningful indyref2 will remain with Westminster regardless
Indeed. Even Shagger left the door open when he refused to back your endlessly stated position that he would refuse any new referendum.
Its almost as if you don't speak for the Prime Minister.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
I agree with you 100%.
If you don't pay for a decent prison system too, to house those who've been fairly convicted of breaking the laws, the same thing too.
And yet to listen to the Brexiteers on here the EU/EMA are in charge and are dictating to all their stupidity. Which is true - except that it ISN'T. Member states are free to do as they see fit, which is why we have the contrasting polar opposites of Belgium jabbing away and Italy arresting the vaccine for witchcraft.
Have we reached the stage yet where Brexiteer ultras are arguing that the EU should be MORE centralised and integrated?
Does all this straw man nonsense make those foolish enough to oppose us leaving the EU feel a bit better about themselves? Apologies if I have missed it but I have not seen anyone on here say that this is all the fault of the EMA or that it should be. But carry on, I know its a bit embarrassing right now.
You wilfully miss the point. The EMA provides advice to the member states national health agencies who then make the national decision. There is no big bad EU dictating to members to stop using the Oxford jag - members are free to make their own decisions as they are.
That "the EU" keeps getting the blame is what is funny - it isn't the EU dictating to Italy to impound vials or Ireland to say "careful now" on national TV or Belgium to say "we're continuing with our vaccination programme".
No one is saying that it is. No one.
You are literally foaming on about how we no longer have to listen to the opinions of Germany and France. When it comes to healthcare provision in a pandemic NOBODY need listen to them including neighbouring Belgium and Italy. You keep mentioning the EMA - what about it? The EMA didn't prevent us from creating the VTF, didn't prevent the Italians finding satan in glass vials, didn't prevent the Belgians scratching their heads and continuing to vaccinate.
The EU is not the Big Bad. It is not dictating to members. If Germany wants to be stupid thats up to Germany. But it isn't directing the Italians to be insane.
What we have here is - the EU being a lumbering behemoth with all the agility of an oil tanker crewed by squabbling hippopotami, both on approval and procurement AND - the EU hastily slapping export bans on vaccines and closing the Northern Ireland border in a way which doesn't necessarily paint them in the best of lights AND - various actors, from heads of state downwards, in individual member states, casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the AZ vaccine in a way which simply isn't backed up by the evidence and which they haven't done for other vaccines
Whether the EU as a supranational organisation or individual member states are culpable for the situation is almost beside the point.
Now, the UK has clearly made numerous missteps too. But these have largely arisen from not knowing what to do in any given situation, or from having to choose between two highly unpalatable options. Whereas the situation that continental Europe finds itself in with regard to vaccines results from - what? I simply don't understand why they are behaving like this. It can't just be spite, surely? It really is unfathomable.
Aside from sticking an extra sock down the front of the UK's trousers, has any practical justification been given for the increase of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?
I mean, do they think we are lying? Over 10m vaccinated with AZ in real world conditions with fewer clots than you would expect in a similar population who had not had the jab and they want to re-examine some slightly imperfect trial?
This is remarkable - solid evidence that the Greenland ice sheet almost completely melted and reformed during the last million years. Which implies it's a great deal more unstable than we hitherto thought.
A multimillion-year-old record of Greenland vegetation and glacial history preserved in sediment beneath 1.4 km of ice at Camp Century https://www.pnas.org/content/118/13/e2021442118 Understanding Greenland Ice Sheet history is critical for predicting its response to future climate warming and contribution to sea-level rise. We analyzed sediment at the bottom of the Camp Century ice core, collected 120 km from the coast in northwestern Greenland. The sediment, frozen under nearly 1.4 km of ice, contains well-preserved fossil plants and biomolecules sourced from at least two ice-free warm periods in the past few million years. Enriched stable isotopes in pore ice indicate precipitation at lower elevations than present, implying ice-sheet absence. The similarity of cosmogenic isotope ratios in the upper-most sediment to those measured in bedrock near the center of Greenland suggests that the ice sheet melted and re-formed at least once during the past million years.
Be careful - you will really upset the climate change mafia who believe that the climate as it was in 1960 is what it always has been, and anything different means extinction... Its interesting that there is evidence of significantly reduced polar ice in the past that didn't cause the extinction of polar bears...
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
I agree with you 100%.
If you don't pay for a decent prison system too, to house those who've been fairly convicted of breaking the laws, the same thing too.
There should be much fewer laws, better enforced.
What the government is doing instead is a cynical cruel deception.
Deception: because it won't work. Cruel: because it gives victims false hope. Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.
Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
Aside from sticking an extra sock down the front of the UK's trousers, has any practical justification been given for the increase of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?
Apparently this review has been underway since 2019 so I suppose it's worth a read to see what the justification is.
Personally it reads to me like America has woken up (after a brief and much welcomed Trumpite interregnum) and wants its gimp back. When the major threat to our soil is terroristic, I can't see any justification for more strategic nukes, which we can't use against terrorists - or at all. They are American nukes they don't have to pay for.
When discussing civil liberties, it’s always a good idea to be seen to be standing up for those you don’t agree with. Perhaps Wera now wishes she’d spoken out earlier about other cases, but the replies to that thread are quite depressing.
We're discussing this locally too. Bits of Godalming have had a rash of moderately worrying ASB - youths shouting at pensioners, vandalism, swigging booze in the road, that sort of thing, though not actual violence against people. The police would like a public spaces protection order, and the council is consulting on it - I'm the relevant portfolio-holder. This would enable them to impose spot fines of up to £100 for behaviour likely to cause distress etc., to provide a choice between slow, expensive court hearings and no action. The whole (smallish) town would be covered to avoid simply moving the trouble-makers around.
Specifically, anyone doing the following would be subject to spot fines:
* intentionally or recklessly, shouts, swears, screams, is verbally abusive or acts in a manner to cause, or likely to cause, annoyance, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. * acts or incites others to act in an anti-social manner that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
One sees what they're getting at. But similar questions are being posed as nationally. Is "liable to cause... annoyance... to... any person" too vague? Aren't there all kinds of lawful activities that come under that heading, such as posting something contentious on PB? Wouldn't it effectively ban any kind of demonstration, even if Covid-compliant?
My provisional feeling is that "annoyance" needs to be tightened up, e.g. "serious and persistent annoyance". Any views?
Without wishing to summon my inner Blair, has anybody considered addressing the causes of the anti-social behaviour alongside the punishments?
Presumably this ASB is a concern because it has increased. Why is that? What's causing the youth of Godalming to become more anti-social? Wouldn't it be better to solve the problem than to focus on punishments? Obviously things like the decimation of youth services may be an issue, but isn't there anything that community partners (LA, schools, police etc.) can do to minimise such behaviour? Or is it just a consequence of lockdown? So, I'd turn the question around a bit, and be tough on the causes as well as the crime.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
I don't think we inhabitants of the early 21st century are unique in this. I'd say this has been a constant throughout history and will continue to be so. Historians in 100 years' time will be utterly unsurprised.
But yes. Rather than implementing new laws all the time, can we try just enforcing the laws we have properly?
Aside from sticking an extra sock down the front of the UK's trousers, has any practical justification been given for the increase of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?
We will find out in the report this afternoon but you need to have a minimum credible effective deterrent against all potential aggressors. If the number of aggressors has increased, and nuclear weapons have proliferated, with new attack vectors possible, then you may need to modify your arsenal to have more operationally available and targetable missiles.
They were cut from c.225 to c.180 in the 2010 SDSR, and this only takes it back to about where it was in the early noughties, and I suspect that fits with the enhanced capabilities and capacity of the new Dreadnought subs too.
Since I’ve been assured that no one really wants Indyref2, presumably this is a massive tactical error by the EssEnnPee and should be welcomed by Unionists everywhere.
If the SNP do stand as 'SNP Indyref2' then it may well put off a few voters who are happy to keep Sturgeon as FM but do not want indyref2 anytime soon.
In any case the decision on any meaningful indyref2 will remain with Westminster regardless
Indeed. Even Shagger left the door open when he refused to back your endlessly stated position that he would refuse any new referendum.
Its almost as if you don't speak for the Prime Minister.
Aside from sticking an extra sock down the front of the UK's trousers, has any practical justification been given for the increase of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?
Apparently this review has been underway since 2019 so I suppose it's worth a read to see what the justification is.
Personally it reads to me like America has woken up (after a brief and much welcomed Trumpite interregnum) and wants its gimp back. When the major threat to our soil is terroristic, I can't see any justification for more strategic nukes, which we can't use against terrorists - or at all. They are American nukes they don't have to pay for.
You can. We could have used a sub-strategic strike - a single warhead, with a substantially reduced yield of just a few kilotons, for example - on ISIL HQ in Raqqa or nearby if they had detonated a dirty bomb on British soil, or threatened to do so.
I mean, do they think we are lying? Over 10m vaccinated with AZ in real world conditions with fewer clots than you would expect in a similar population who had not had the jab and they want to re-examine some slightly imperfect trial?
It's just madness and unnecessary death.
as a resident of Denmark I endorse this message - my government have gone nuts but have form for this sort of thing even during covid - all our mink were wiped out on the basis of the 'forsigtighedsprincip' even though that meant breaking the law and ignoring the constitution - I don't really care about the mink farmers but I do care that it will cost 18 billion Kroner for no reason whatsoever - the current nonsense will cost Danes in lives 100% guaranteed.
Also as the Pfizer real-world data shows a remarkably similar level of blood clot incidents why is it still being used? A straightforward question that none of the media here is asking. Why not? I am totally baffled at the ineptness of our vaccine effort as in most areas Denmark functions at a very high level.
I am about 95% sure that is not true either. Far more men suffer violence than women. Of course far, far more of the perpetrators of violence are men but that is a different statement.
There is more violent crime against women recorded by the police, mainly due to more offences without injury being recorded. The crime survey on the other hand suggests there is significantly more, a ratio of 3:2, violent crime committed against men. Homicide victims are nearly 3/4 male. So SKS is being a little selective with the statistics he is using there.
To his credit, Blair's motivation in all this is fairly clearly about protecting peace in Northern Ireland. There are too many more concerned with process and making assertions about "the UK/(occasionally EU) made its bed it can lie in it", whilst ignoring the fact that the stated purpose of the protocol is to protect the Good Friday agreement and Northern Ireland peace, not about winners or losers between the UK/EU. If the arrangements currently in place under the Protocol aren't working to the purpose intended (whether due to issues at the Irish border OR the Irish Sea border) then it is encumbent on both sides to adapt and be flexible to revise them.
(Legally) enforcing the agreement as written won't help it meet its purpose if it doesn't work.
You're right, of course, but the Irish border and NI peace has only ever been a useful tool for the EU to try and trap the UK into vassalage. That's the lens with which the EU views the border, how best to use it to hurt the UK, they clearly give no fucks about NI peace and ensuring separatists and loyalists are both content with the arrangements.
Ultimately they could have done away with the sea border entirely and just lived with a very small open border with the UK on the island of Ireland. Instead they chose this overly legalistic approach to create as much difficulty for the UK government as possible to extricate itself from the EU.
I don't understand the issues of NI, I've read some pieces from people who do we they all say that the NI protocol threatens the peace in NI so for that reason it either needs to be rewritten or just junked entirely. The last thing we need is a resurgence of bombs and people dying over a conflict that has been settled fir 20+ years.
So all the EU had to do was bin its long standing and pre-existing border rules to just have an open border with the outside world? Fine! Except that we left at least in part because of the EU's lax borders. We wanted to Take Back Control of our borders to stop forrin wandering in to steal our jobs and our wimmin. Can't do that with an open border can we?
"Ah, just don't allow them to work / claim benefits" I hear as a reply. Yes, thats call an illegal immigrant. The type that really wind gammoneers up the most. Your solution is to have an open door to undocumented illegals. Bravo.
There’s no border control of people between any and all of GB, UK, NI and RoI, there hasn’t been for decades, and no-one is proposing that there should be.
There is border control for people, though I've only experienced it when I was travelling on a coach with passengers who did not share my pasty complexion. Visa checks for non-residents.
Aside from sticking an extra sock down the front of the UK's trousers, has any practical justification been given for the increase of nuclear warheads from 180 to 260?
More warheads per missile whilst on patrol basically. Even with the fusing and navigation upgrades from about 10 years ago (which more than doubled the effective threat of Trident against hard targets) there is obviously the concern that some potential targets might have effective ABM systems and so you want to increase the chance of destroying those targets with extra warheads.
Comments
How many women disappear off the streets to be murdered, per year? Single figures across the whole country, no? Every one of them is headline news, because it happens so rarely.
It's also true that since these reports from Austria and Norway etc have been in the news there have been loads of people reporting all kinds of symptoms after getting the AZ vaccine - my wife's German emergency department has had lots of people coming in over the last week. It's a really shit situation.
Plus the same logic applies too. If French or Irish or Italians can say "we're going to stop vaccinating, despite there being no evidence, because of the precautionary principle" then how is that any different to an individual hearing that and later thinking "I'm going to refuse the vaccine, despite there being no evidence, because of the precautionary principle"?
I also think the EU severely underestimated how big of a pull factor London/UK is for people. They expected most of the European employees at the EMA to go to Amsterdam but in the end almost all of them took up the option of moving to the MHRA and continuing as if nothing had really changed.
"Historians looking back at our society in a 100 years time will be entirely baffled why our solution to everything is "more laws, implemented quickly without much discussion or thought" at the same time as we want to cut costs in policing, prisons and the court system. How does anyone ever expect this combination will work?"
I have been making this point on here for years now. The reaction of many of those who comment (and most don't care) is to say that this is special pleading by lawyers. Well, it bloody well isn't. It's pointing out the bleeding obvious. If you won't pay for a decent justice system to implement your laws, passing new laws is a total waste of time.
Some day someone in government might realise this. I am not holding my breath.
If you don't pay for a decent prison system too, to house those who've been fairly convicted of breaking the laws, the same thing too.
There should be much fewer laws, better enforced.
- the EU being a lumbering behemoth with all the agility of an oil tanker crewed by squabbling hippopotami, both on approval and procurement
AND
- the EU hastily slapping export bans on vaccines and closing the Northern Ireland border in a way which doesn't necessarily paint them in the best of lights
AND
- various actors, from heads of state downwards, in individual member states, casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the AZ vaccine in a way which simply isn't backed up by the evidence and which they haven't done for other vaccines
Whether the EU as a supranational organisation or individual member states are culpable for the situation is almost beside the point.
Now, the UK has clearly made numerous missteps too. But these have largely arisen from not knowing what to do in any given situation, or from having to choose between two highly unpalatable options. Whereas the situation that continental Europe finds itself in with regard to vaccines results from - what? I simply don't understand why they are behaving like this. It can't just be spite, surely? It really is unfathomable.
It's just madness and unnecessary death.
Its interesting that there is evidence of significantly reduced polar ice in the past that didn't cause the extinction of polar bears...
Deception: because it won't work.
Cruel: because it gives victims false hope.
Cynical: it allows them to claim to be tough on crime while being the total opposite and paint their opponents as soft on it. And that is all they really want to do: fight a silly culture war and get one over on their opponents.
Dealing intelligently with the problem is way down on the list, assuming it's on the list at all.
Personally it reads to me like America has woken up (after a brief and much welcomed Trumpite interregnum) and wants its gimp back. When the major threat to our soil is terroristic, I can't see any justification for more strategic nukes, which we can't use against terrorists - or at all. They are American nukes they don't have to pay for.
Presumably this ASB is a concern because it has increased. Why is that? What's causing the youth of Godalming to become more anti-social? Wouldn't it be better to solve the problem than to focus on punishments? Obviously things like the decimation of youth services may be an issue, but isn't there anything that community partners (LA, schools, police etc.) can do to minimise such behaviour? Or is it just a consequence of lockdown? So, I'd turn the question around a bit, and be tough on the causes as well as the crime.
But yes. Rather than implementing new laws all the time, can we try just enforcing the laws we have properly?
They were cut from c.225 to c.180 in the 2010 SDSR, and this only takes it back to about where it was in the early noughties, and I suspect that fits with the enhanced capabilities and capacity of the new Dreadnought subs too.
The actual speech given made no such assertion.
Also as the Pfizer real-world data shows a remarkably similar level of blood clot incidents why is it still being used? A straightforward question that none of the media here is asking. Why not? I am totally baffled at the ineptness of our vaccine effort as in most areas Denmark functions at a very high level.