Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Only in the Midlands and Wales do more people think Johnson’s “clean and honest” over those who thin

12346»

Comments

  • I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,154

    Assuming the EU lets them export them.....

    Officials are close to finalising a deal to purchase tens of millions more doses of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in time for a third booster dose to be given to the elderly this autumn.

    Government sources say they hope to roughly double the UK’s original order of 40 million jabs. If negotiations are successful, the extra stock may also be used for those in their twenties, who are be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca jab.

    The NHS will start inviting those in their thirties for vaccines by the end of this week.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/86ae6592-a46e-11eb-9808-bf328d2144aa?shareToken=efd957e989f815e0dc2411bbc0509dc4

    If that’s correct, I’m very happy indeed on a personal level. Can’t come soon enough for me, even if it means I have two rough days.
  • ydoethur said:

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    The problem is, we ended up with both.
    Ultimately that is what should have buried BoJo for good
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,690

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    I hear this and think what a shame he didn’t follow his instinct. I suspect this is the “wrong” reaction though
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528
    ydoethur said:

    Assuming the EU lets them export them.....

    Officials are close to finalising a deal to purchase tens of millions more doses of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in time for a third booster dose to be given to the elderly this autumn.

    Government sources say they hope to roughly double the UK’s original order of 40 million jabs. If negotiations are successful, the extra stock may also be used for those in their twenties, who are be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca jab.

    The NHS will start inviting those in their thirties for vaccines by the end of this week.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/86ae6592-a46e-11eb-9808-bf328d2144aa?shareToken=efd957e989f815e0dc2411bbc0509dc4

    If that’s correct, I’m very happy indeed on a personal level. Can’t come soon enough for me, even if it means I have two rough days.
    Not long to wait now!
  • MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    While I applaud your stance, with respect it is said with the bravado and insouciance of someone who doesn’t have to attend all the community meetings, read the social media posts and emails and face electors at the ballot box every four years.
    There's a place for a regulated market to rip, but that position needs nuance.

    Let the market rip unregulated in the Peak District and the Lake District?

    I can fully appreciate the need for greenbelt and National Parks. But there are areas that don’t fall into these categories - or perhaps parts of the greenbelt that arguably could take a certain level of development without too great an impact - that are defended vociferously by existing residents.

    I can fully understand why they do it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677
    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,427
    edited April 2021
    MaxPB said:

    Most revealing about Johnson & his Downing St refurb - he wanted rid of Theresa May’s “John Lewis nightmare”. Most people consider John Lewis reliable, good value & upmarket. One of Britain’s favourite brands. #TorySleaze

    https://twitter.com/BenPBradshaw/status/1386238865510477824?s=20

    No, I understand the John Lewis nightmare. It's one step up from the IKEA nightmare.
    Nowt wrong with IKEA or John Lewis, although both are pretty pricey.

    The working man buys his furniture from B&M.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    rkrkrk said:

    Lol if Boris Johnson really was in favour of the european super league...

    https://twitter.com/ianbirrell/status/1386219364421091331?s=19

    Sources say Woodward met briefly with the PM and may have left with the wrong impression that the PM supported the ESL

    Lol

    2 letters Lear has form tbf
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,677
    Except:

    "Sources close to Woodward also deny he discussed the Superleague with Johnson, they say Woodward himself didn’t even know his bosses the Glazers were going for Superleague then rather than revamped Uefa Champions League."

    https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/1386269923593306114?s=20
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    tlg86 said:

    With regards to any future lockdowns to protect the anti-vaxxers (and, to be fair, those who can’t be vaccinated), isn’t the issue that it’ll soon become apparent just how good the vaccines are?

    There was that story a few days ago about just how few vaccinated people have been hospitalised. That got very little coverage in the press, but eventually the government will have to come clean about who exactly is still dying from COVID. Good luck getting the vaccinated to obey lockdown laws when they know that they’re fine.

    Especially as the anti-vaxxers are going to be concentrated among certain demographics and certain locations.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    It's happening, isn't it?

    Murdoch is engineering it for his man Gove to take over as PM

    Gove is even more of a Bannonite than Johnson (a mere serial chancer and snake oil salesman)

    If you think it's bad now, then you haven't seen anything yet.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,257
    I go away for an hour to do some gardening and when I return I see Boris is not only responsible for the second (third?) wave but also let Woodward believe he supported the ESL proposals.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Leon said:

    Except:

    "Sources close to Woodward also deny he discussed the Superleague with Johnson, they say Woodward himself didn’t even know his bosses the Glazers were going for Superleague then rather than revamped Uefa Champions League."

    https://twitter.com/david_conn/status/1386269923593306114?s=20
    It’s fun to think that Boris may have stitched up Woodward, but even if Woodward had mentioned something to Boris in passing, I doubt the PM would have understood the implications of what he was being told.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
    The arbitrary time limit, no more no less, goes beyond that because it brings it home to you that you are not in fact continually craving cigarettes; you are capable of forgetting about them.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    I go away for an hour to do some gardening and when I return I see Boris is not only responsible for the second (third?) wave but also let Woodward believe he supported the ESL proposals.

    Its OK he screwed up the Yes to ESL letter and the no to lockdown letter costing £140m per club and an extra 60,000 deaths respectively but hey ho
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    It's happening, isn't it?

    Murdoch is engineering it for his man Gove to take over as PM

    Gove is even more of a Bannonite than Johnson (a mere serial chancer and snake oil salesman)

    If you think it's bad now, then you haven't seen anything yet.

    Gove won't get it because the constituency of Tory MPs has radically changed since 2019 and the newly elected ones in the Red Wall seats recognise he is toxic.

    The next Conservative leader will be someone whose values are in line with the Blue Collar Conservatism ethos.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470

    For those getting excited about expensive wallpaper...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm

    Opposition MPs, newspapers and DIY stores have joined forces to attack the Lord Chancellor after he described spending £650,000 of public money on decorating his flat as a "noble cause".

    Lord Irvine of Lairg said the investment on his official apartment in the House of Lords would be appreciated by future generations.


    How much would £650k be worth now ?

    Of course Irving was big mates with Blair.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    Good for him if he did. A pity he was talked out of it.

    And yes, nuances and numerous shades of grey. But my view is that our lockdowns have been massively over the top and the costs have been far greater than han an benefits the have brought.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891

    tlg86 said:

    With regards to any future lockdowns to protect the anti-vaxxers (and, to be fair, those who can’t be vaccinated), isn’t the issue that it’ll soon become apparent just how good the vaccines are?

    There was that story a few days ago about just how few vaccinated people have been hospitalised. That got very little coverage in the press, but eventually the government will have to come clean about who exactly is still dying from COVID. Good luck getting the vaccinated to obey lockdown laws when they know that they’re fine.

    Especially as the anti-vaxxers are going to be concentrated among certain demographics and certain locations.
    The same people highlighting the 99.7% or whatever it is survival rate for Covid seem to have a different take on the 99.99997% or w/e survival rate for the vaccines.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Charles said:

    Sorry but a user here is saying they understand hardship because their grandmother was gifted an apartment

    No. That’s not what I was saying. Try reading posts that making assumptions based on your prejudices.

    1. My grandfather was required to live in Admiralty Arch for security reasons
    2. This was in the mid 1950s
    3. The flat hadn’t been decorated since before the war
    4. The government allowance was risible
    5. So she funded the refurbishment herself

    I suspect few people on here have experience of living in government allocated accommodation so I thought it was a helpful perspective. There is no claim of understanding hardship as a result, and fortunately we could afford to pay for the update.
    The mid fifties and it hadn't been redecorated since before the war. And how is this analogous to Johnson's situation? Was No 10 in a similar state of disrepair in 2019? Honestly Charles sometimes you just make yourself look silly.

    Or maybe Theresa May's love for the austere 1950s had returned Downing St to its minimalist past?
    It’s the difference between 10+ and 15+ years.

    My point is that government grace & favour apartments are not as flash as people think and need updating
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,357
    Barnesian said:

    Listening to Liz Truss on Marr she insists Boris has paid for the flat decorations

    It occurs to me that she would not say that if it was untrue and maybe Boris and his advisors are planning a full on rebuttal just before Cummings appears on the 26th May

    It would be good politics to take the rug from beneath him just before the meeting

    I suspect he paid for it out of money that he was loaned or given. So it would be technically true to say that he paid for it out of his own pocket - but who put it in his pocket?

    I do think the flat is a big distraction from much more serious accusations - the VIP list and the delay in lockdown. Johnson is probably happy with the focus on the flat because he knows it won't cut through with the public. Who cares.
    The whole of Downing Street could have been rebuilt in a couple of weeks - if only Boris was as ambitious in his pricing for access as the Clintons - $100,000 for a dinner with Hilary in 2016....

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-63250

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585

    ydoethur said:

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    The problem is, we ended up with both.
    Ultimately that is what should have buried BoJo for good
    Trouble is, we haven't had an opposition presenting an alternative. We've had a "we'd have done that but we would have put bells on it" approach from the main opposition party and a mysterious silence from the Lib Dems.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    For those getting excited about expensive wallpaper...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/politics/61665.stm

    FWIW... (and really just to piss off @CorrectHorseBattery) Derry was replacing the refurbishment my grandmother did - and paid for herself - in the early 1970s...
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264

    It's happening, isn't it?

    Murdoch is engineering it for his man Gove to take over as PM

    Gove is even more of a Bannonite than Johnson (a mere serial chancer and snake oil salesman)

    If you think it's bad now, then you haven't seen anything yet.

    He's still fundamentally not popular enough.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    https://twitter.com/ZacGoldsmith/status/1386266194399928321

    Zac is sounding oddly desperate with this

    Doesn’t Carrie work for one of his family charities?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585
    Pulpstar said:

    tlg86 said:

    With regards to any future lockdowns to protect the anti-vaxxers (and, to be fair, those who can’t be vaccinated), isn’t the issue that it’ll soon become apparent just how good the vaccines are?

    There was that story a few days ago about just how few vaccinated people have been hospitalised. That got very little coverage in the press, but eventually the government will have to come clean about who exactly is still dying from COVID. Good luck getting the vaccinated to obey lockdown laws when they know that they’re fine.

    Especially as the anti-vaxxers are going to be concentrated among certain demographics and certain locations.
    The same people highlighting the 99.7% or whatever it is survival rate for Covid seem to have a different take on the 99.99997% or w/e survival rate for the vaccines.

    Yes, I don't get why that is. I'm in the camp which highlights both.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Cookie said:

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    Good for him if he did. A pity he was talked out of it.

    And yes, nuances and numerous shades of grey. But my view is that our lockdowns have been massively over the top and the costs have been far greater than han an benefits the have brought.
    ----- "regardless of the bodies"
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 4,264

    Cookie said:

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    Good for him if he did. A pity he was talked out of it.

    And yes, nuances and numerous shades of grey. But my view is that our lockdowns have been massively over the top and the costs have been far greater than han an benefits the have brought.
    ----- "regardless of the bodies"
    Sometimes the best decisions for society involve a few more deaths now, in return for preventing a lot more future deaths.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    Dura_Ace said:

    Charles said:



    I did agree with @Dura_Ace that military accommodation is woeful

    When I did my watchkeeping qualification on a T23 in the North Sea my berth was a mattress on top of three filing cabinets in close proximity to that of a junior engineering officer. The smell of his cock never failed to reach me on the many occasions throughout the night when he extracted it in order to pleasure himself.
    Don't recall hearing anything like that during the many recounted tales of old sea dog Prinz Phil. Beats the searchlights of Matapan for vivifying life on the ocean wave.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Nicola Sturgeon has accepted there would have to be a border between England and an independent Scotland but insisted businesses and trade would not “suffer” because of it.

    The SNP leader said Scotland would try to negotiate arrangements to “keep trade flowing easily across the border” if it becomes independent and rejoins the European Union.

    The First Minister said an independent Scotland would “comply with all of the requirements of EU membership” when asked about European Union regulations, customs checks and inspections of goods entering the single market.


    https://news.stv.tv/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-border-but-trade-wont-suffer?top
  • Nicola Sturgeon has accepted there would have to be a border between England and an independent Scotland but insisted businesses and trade would not “suffer” because of it.

    The SNP leader said Scotland would try to negotiate arrangements to “keep trade flowing easily across the border” if it becomes independent and rejoins the European Union.

    The First Minister said an independent Scotland would “comply with all of the requirements of EU membership” when asked about European Union regulations, customs checks and inspections of goods entering the single market.


    https://news.stv.tv/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-border-but-trade-wont-suffer?top

    She was all over the place

    Shifty, evasive and frankly embarrassing

    Scotland can do better than this
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    Over 70% of adults in Wales vaccinated
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,708
    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,123
    Cookie said:

    ydoethur said:

    BREAKING: Boris Johnson reportedly said in November that he would tolerate a high death toll rather than order another lockdown

    Via
    @MoS_Politics

    The problem is, we ended up with both.
    Ultimately that is what should have buried BoJo for good
    Trouble is, we haven't had an opposition presenting an alternative. We've had a "we'd have done that but we would have put bells on it" approach from the main opposition party and a mysterious silence from the Lib Dems.
    I think the “right” thing to have done was to lockdown in September 2020 (schools should never have gone back - too bad Starmer didn’t have the balls to stand up to the PM on that). But it wouldn’t have been sustainable for that to have lasted until 21 June 2021. So there probably would have been one or two reopenings and closings again.

    Oh, and close the borders. Obviously.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    This'll win back the Red Wall. Islington:

    Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, is coming under pressure from Europhile MPs and party activists to support sweeping changes to the Brexit deal as concern rises about the damage it is doing to Britain’s economy and jobs and the freedom to move and work across the continent.

    A report for the leftwing group Another Europe is Possible and separate research by the non-aligned, internationalist Best for Britain organisation both strongly support the case for more active engagement with the EU to improve the deal and rebuild relations with member states.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/25/labour-group-urges-keir-starmer-to-back-better-brexit-deal
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    There seems to have been a bit of a postcode lottery with respect to GP surgeries through most of this, judging from anecdata previously offered on PB and elsewhere. I doubt its got anything to do with refusals. Uptake amongst the over 50s now at 95%, apparently. Would be astonishing if interest in vaccines, in what has hitherto been one of the world's most enthusiastic nations about the jab, mysteriously dropped off a cliff as soon as they started on the 49 year olds.
  • This'll win back the Red Wall. Islington:

    Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, is coming under pressure from Europhile MPs and party activists to support sweeping changes to the Brexit deal as concern rises about the damage it is doing to Britain’s economy and jobs and the freedom to move and work across the continent.

    A report for the leftwing group Another Europe is Possible and separate research by the non-aligned, internationalist Best for Britain organisation both strongly support the case for more active engagement with the EU to improve the deal and rebuild relations with member states.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/25/labour-group-urges-keir-starmer-to-back-better-brexit-deal

    Stupid idea
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599

    Barnesian said:

    Listening to Liz Truss on Marr she insists Boris has paid for the flat decorations

    It occurs to me that she would not say that if it was untrue and maybe Boris and his advisors are planning a full on rebuttal just before Cummings appears on the 26th May

    It would be good politics to take the rug from beneath him just before the meeting

    I suspect he paid for it out of money that he was loaned or given. So it would be technically true to say that he paid for it out of his own pocket - but who put it in his pocket?

    I do think the flat is a big distraction from much more serious accusations - the VIP list and the delay in lockdown. Johnson is probably happy with the focus on the flat because he knows it won't cut through with the public. Who cares.
    The whole of Downing Street could have been rebuilt in a couple of weeks - if only Boris was as ambitious in his pricing for access as the Clintons - $100,000 for a dinner with Hilary in 2016....

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-WB-63250

    Such as £160k from friends of Putin to play tennis against him? I know many on here regard Johnson as a muscular athlete but I doubt it was his sporting abilities that the Russians were interested in.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,528

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    Better than expected supply.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,891
    edited April 2021

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    I too was in this position
    The NI bods said there is a large number that hover over the button/wait for the text and instantly book (You and me) then there are those that take their time, then the hesitant then the antivaxxers.
    I think that's likely true everywhere.
    Did you get Pfizer or Astra ?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637
    Pulpstar said:

    Over 70% of adults in Wales vaccinated

    That nice Mr Drakeford and the NHS in Wales playing a blinder
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 757

    Nicola Sturgeon has accepted there would have to be a border between England and an independent Scotland but insisted businesses and trade would not “suffer” because of it.

    The SNP leader said Scotland would try to negotiate arrangements to “keep trade flowing easily across the border” if it becomes independent and rejoins the European Union.

    The First Minister said an independent Scotland would “comply with all of the requirements of EU membership” when asked about European Union regulations, customs checks and inspections of goods entering the single market.


    https://news.stv.tv/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-border-but-trade-wont-suffer?top

    She was all over the place

    Shifty, evasive and frankly embarrassing

    Scotland can do better than this
    There's two "if's," there, the second one being and implication we'd rejoin the EU. Has she said whether that would be subject to another referendum yet?
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,708
    Pulpstar said:

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    I too was in this position
    The NI bods said there is a large number that hover over the button/wait for the text and instantly book (You and me) then there are those that take their time, then the hesitant then the antivaxxers.
    I think that's likely true everywhere.
    Did you get Pfizer or Astra ?
    Astra. Didn't feel great yesterday but fine today
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited April 2021

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    A bit frothy and actually not true. There are very good reasons for being in favour in principle of keeping the rural, rural, even in places 100s of miles away one has no plans ever to visit let alone move to.

    Edit: thinking about it I live in a national park. On the house price theory I should be agitating for green field development everywhere else because it pushes up the value of np status. I am not.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    Monkeys said:

    Nicola Sturgeon has accepted there would have to be a border between England and an independent Scotland but insisted businesses and trade would not “suffer” because of it.

    The SNP leader said Scotland would try to negotiate arrangements to “keep trade flowing easily across the border” if it becomes independent and rejoins the European Union.

    The First Minister said an independent Scotland would “comply with all of the requirements of EU membership” when asked about European Union regulations, customs checks and inspections of goods entering the single market.


    https://news.stv.tv/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-border-but-trade-wont-suffer?top

    She was all over the place

    Shifty, evasive and frankly embarrassing

    Scotland can do better than this
    There's two "if's," there, the second one being and implication we'd rejoin the EU. Has she said whether that would be subject to another referendum yet?
    I’d love someone to ask her what would happen if the U.K. acted like the EU did, and insisted that the only two things up for discussion in the first stage of the independence process were the money and the border - with the U.K. side insisting that there can never be a physical border between England and Scotland.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "No"

    Patrick Harvie was the latest to take part in our leaders phone-in

    Among those calling the @scottishgreens co-leader this morning was Marion - who asked about the Gender Recognition Act

    “Can he confirm what a woman is?”


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1386285110522257409?s=20
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,207
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/24/labourshartlepool-candidate-accused-desperate-approach-st-georges/

    LOL - make your minds up Labour

    Still, campaigning on the NHS not going to work in this case is it.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    A bit frothy and actually not true. There are very good reasons for being in favour in principle of keeping the rural, rural, even in places 100s of miles away one has no plans ever to visit let alone move to.

    Edit: thinking about it I live in a national park. On the house price theory I should be agitating for green field development everywhere else because it pushes up the value of np status. I am not.
    I'm talking fringe development.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    And immediately below someone tweets that Blair only won because he got Rupert onside etc etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.

    It was far from inevitable.

    Had it not been for the Kent variant then things would have played very differently.

    It was worth at least trying the tiers short of a lockdown too.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,871

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    There seems to have been a bit of a postcode lottery with respect to GP surgeries through most of this, judging from anecdata previously offered on PB and elsewhere. I doubt its got anything to do with refusals. Uptake amongst the over 50s now at 95%, apparently. Would be astonishing if interest in vaccines, in what has hitherto been one of the world's most enthusiastic nations about the jab, mysteriously dropped off a cliff as soon as they started on the 49 year olds.
    There's definitely a postcode lottery, my GP is still rounding up the over 50s for their second jab.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.

    It was far from inevitable.

    Had it not been for the Kent variant then things would have played very differently.

    It was worth at least trying the tiers short of a lockdown too.
    -------"regardless of the bodies"
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.

    It was far from inevitable.

    Had it not been for the Kent variant then things would have played very differently.

    It was worth at least trying the tiers short of a lockdown too.
    -------"regardless of the bodies"
    Yes. People die, its shit but it happens.

    Freedom is worth more. Only as a very last resort is it acceptable to restrict our freedoms and we weren't there in September. It wasn't inevitable then. We're not there now either, so it is unjustifiable and inexcusable now.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    "No"

    Patrick Harvie was the latest to take part in our leaders phone-in

    Among those calling the @scottishgreens co-leader this morning was Marion - who asked about the Gender Recognition Act

    “Can he confirm what a woman is?”


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1386285110522257409?s=20

    Shouldn’t he simply call her a TERF and disconnect her ?
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,162

    Pulpstar said:

    Over 70% of adults in Wales vaccinated

    That nice Mr Drakeford and the NHS in Wales playing a blinder
    Yes, the welsh rollout has been a resounding triumph for them, as well as the others involved. It isn’t just politicians and our national religion, the NHS
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,637

    I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.

    It was far from inevitable.

    Had it not been for the Kent variant then things would have played very differently.

    It was worth at least trying the tiers short of a lockdown too.
    -------"regardless of the bodies"
    Yes. People die, its shit but it happens.

    Freedom is worth more. Only as a very last resort is it acceptable to restrict our freedoms and we weren't there in September. It wasn't inevitable then. We're not there now either, so it is unjustifiable and inexcusable now.
    You agree with Boris before he changed his mind ie

    No lockdown in November regardless of the bodies.

    He locked down when it was obvious regardless of the bodies was untenable
  • Taz said:

    "No"

    Patrick Harvie was the latest to take part in our leaders phone-in

    Among those calling the @scottishgreens co-leader this morning was Marion - who asked about the Gender Recognition Act

    “Can he confirm what a woman is?”


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1386285110522257409?s=20

    Shouldn’t he simply call her a TERF and disconnect her ?
    And report her to the police so if she ever tries to get a job that requires a background check she'll be blacklisted.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,706
    Leafleting with the candidate this morning in the village. General perception is that the SNP vote is a bit softer than they would like despite the number of garden posts they have up. The shine has come off Sturgeon a bit. In my constituency the SNP have a 4k lead and it would be very, very surprising if that was overcome but the expectation is that it might be a bit closer.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    edited April 2021

    Nicola Sturgeon has accepted there would have to be a border between England and an independent Scotland but insisted businesses and trade would not “suffer” because of it.

    The SNP leader said Scotland would try to negotiate arrangements to “keep trade flowing easily across the border” if it becomes independent and rejoins the European Union.

    The First Minister said an independent Scotland would “comply with all of the requirements of EU membership” when asked about European Union regulations, customs checks and inspections of goods entering the single market.


    https://news.stv.tv/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-border-but-trade-wont-suffer?top

    She was all over the place

    Shifty, evasive and frankly embarrassing

    Scotland can do better than this
    But just imagine if she and Drakeford went, who would you have to bleat about whenever BJ's manifest flaws are brought up?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    Floater said:

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/24/labourshartlepool-candidate-accused-desperate-approach-st-georges/

    LOL - make your minds up Labour

    Still, campaigning on the NHS not going to work in this case is it.

    Talking about the NHS wasn't the 1% pay rise supposed to be a 'game changer' in the opinion polls.

    Whatever happened to the 'slow handclap' ?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    Absolutely 100% correct.

    But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.

    If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.

    But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?

    Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen.
    Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
  • glw said:

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    There seems to have been a bit of a postcode lottery with respect to GP surgeries through most of this, judging from anecdata previously offered on PB and elsewhere. I doubt its got anything to do with refusals. Uptake amongst the over 50s now at 95%, apparently. Would be astonishing if interest in vaccines, in what has hitherto been one of the world's most enthusiastic nations about the jab, mysteriously dropped off a cliff as soon as they started on the 49 year olds.
    There's definitely a postcode lottery, my GP is still rounding up the over 50s for their second jab.
    Some GPs are not very good. Some practices have been sucking in their NHS contract fees, and until the rollout happened were providing next to no primary care service.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.

    It was far from inevitable.

    Had it not been for the Kent variant then things would have played very differently.

    It was worth at least trying the tiers short of a lockdown too.
    -------"regardless of the bodies"
    Yes. People die, its shit but it happens.

    Freedom is worth more. Only as a very last resort is it acceptable to restrict our freedoms and we weren't there in September. It wasn't inevitable then. We're not there now either, so it is unjustifiable and inexcusable now.
    You agree with Boris before he changed his mind ie

    No lockdown in November regardless of the bodies.

    He locked down when it was obvious regardless of the bodies was untenable
    No, I agree that lockdown should be the last resort.

    September wasn't the last resort. December wasn't the last resort.

    January was the last resort. The new variant and the pressure on hospitals meant we were there.

    We're not at the last resort now. That's why its inexcusable now and lockdown should be over already.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    Nigelb said:

    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...

    Women under 30, Pfizer. Men under 30, AZN or J&J
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    I see Dom Bess just bowled Yorkshire to victory.
    A few more performances like that, in front of the England captain, won’t do his prospects of a test recall any harm at all.
  • HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    Absolutely 100% correct.

    But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.

    If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.

    But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?

    Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen.
    Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
    Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
    Yes, it's a variation on that. But the 20 minute twist is something I hadn't heard before. For me, and I'm addicted to both, the booze is the easier to kick. Thankfully no drugs other than those two have ever got a grip on me.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,470
    Under 20k infected with only 897 new daily infections:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
    Yes, it's a variation on that. But the 20 minute twist is something I hadn't heard before. For me, and I'm addicted to both, the booze is the easier to kick. Thankfully no drugs other than those two have ever got a grip on me.
    It's also a variation on a weight loss technique. If you want seconds, leave it 15 minutes and have them if you're still hungry at that point.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    Absolutely 100% correct.

    But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.

    If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.

    But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?

    Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen.
    Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
    Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
    Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.

    If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.

    If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513
    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...

    Women under 30, Pfizer. Men under 30, AZN or J&J
    Myocarditis is a pretty common complication with viral infections (including influenza, coronaviruses and adeoviruses). Whether this is vaccine related inflammation, or possibly something else, isn’t yet clear.
  • TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...

    Women under 30, Pfizer. Men under 30, AZN or J&J
    Is some of this shock that vaccines cause side effects because of the MMR debate? Not because the claims couldnt be replicated from the study done by Wakefield, but in an attempt to over compensate, the advice is that vaccines are perfectly safe?

    Vaccines are not perfectly safe they carry a risk. Children and adults regularly have reactions to vaccines, and occasionally they are fatal.

    But it is nuanced medical advice that says the risk from a vaccine is there but much smaller than the risk from catching the disease.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,456
    edited April 2021

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...

    Women under 30, Pfizer. Men under 30, AZN or J&J
    Is some of this shock that vaccines cause side effects because of the MMR debate? Not because the claims couldnt be replicated from the study done by Wakefield, but in an attempt to over compensate, the advice is that vaccines are perfectly safe?

    Vaccines are not perfectly safe they carry a risk. Children and adults regularly have reactions to vaccines, and occasionally they are fatal.

    But it is nuanced medical advice that says the risk from a vaccine is there but much smaller than the risk from catching the disease.
    I think most of it is that humans are pretty bad at risk assessment of this sort. All the evidence from multiple fields is that our emotional brain-based fight or flight response is highly adaptive to our origins, but our logical brain has a really hard time with numerical risk analysis.

    AND. People and corporations like certainty. Biology does not do certainties.

    AND ... then, of course, we just lose all capacity for logical thought when it comes to risks for our kids.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 41,798
    Edit: marked 22-25 Jan, so old presumably?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited April 2021
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
    The arbitrary time limit, no more no less, goes beyond that because it brings it home to you that you are not in fact continually craving cigarettes; you are capable of forgetting about them.
    The Allen Carr book, even if (like me) you read it and don't quit, is great on the warped psychology of the smoker. The cognitive dissonance required to view it as anything other than a ruinous addiction. There were so many passages where I went, "Gosh, that is just nailing my flawed thought processes on this. That is me."

    Which is where I remain now. On smoking I suffer from cognitive dissonance but know full well that I do and furthermore understand why I do. So I suppose that's no longer cognitive dissonance, it's something else. Probably best not to try and name it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    Assuming the EU lets them export them.....

    Officials are close to finalising a deal to purchase tens of millions more doses of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in time for a third booster dose to be given to the elderly this autumn.

    Government sources say they hope to roughly double the UK’s original order of 40 million jabs. If negotiations are successful, the extra stock may also be used for those in their twenties, who are be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca jab.

    The NHS will start inviting those in their thirties for vaccines by the end of this week.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/86ae6592-a46e-11eb-9808-bf328d2144aa?shareToken=efd957e989f815e0dc2411bbc0509dc4

    That's an interesting story.

    I'm sure that I've seen commentary that the latest proposed EU order of 1.8bn or the 300m before (?) that had stuff about security of supply.

    It will be a real belly laugh if the UK emerge with a contract first again (see Moderna) because the EC have been pushing bits of paper around for weeks.

    Potentially being the world's first place to order Pfizer last year may give leverage or a pre-emption right ?
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703
    edited April 2021

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    All caveats, such as Leave Remain, age, etc still don't adequately explain the PM and the Tories resounding success in the Midlands.

    When? In 2019 the key was probably under-the-radar social media campaigning about how Corbyn wanted to disband the armed forces and had applauded the IRA's bombing campaigns.
    I mean longer term than one campaign. It is a region that has dramatically swung blue over several elections. Much faster than the rest of the nation.
    And the PM polls well there too.
    I don't see why this should necessarily be so.
    Housing.

    New builds in the North and Midlands have been able to be bought by people, allowing them to own their own homes, meaning they're far more likely to be Tory.

    Idiotic councils down South in comparison think pampering NIMBYs is the solution, meaning house prices rise, meaning people can't afford homes, meaning the region is relatively swinging Labour.
    NIMBY's vote though. Often Tory!
    But NIMBYs getting overruled here means more houses, more home owners, more Tory votes.

    NIMBYs getting their way there means fewer houses, more tenants in cramped shared accommodation, more Labour votes.

    The key determination is whether people own their own home, not whether someone else's is built.
    I used to have access to the inboxes of a number of local cllrs. Do not underestimate the fury and persistence of NIMBYs. Particularly those in suburban and green areas full of the educated,well-heeled and sharp-elbowed, who know how to use the system to their advantage. The rapidity with which people suddenly discover a love of newts and ancient trees is impressive.

    The Tory central govt wants to build, build, build. Their provincial brothers and sisters want the opposite. Or they are happy for building to happen on brownfield sites, quite often in Labour wards. Whereas if the free market were to be allowed to let rip, developers would be chucking up larger homes on greenfield sites in generally Tory-voting areas.
    Oh absolutely.

    And the fury and persistence of NIMBYs wanting to pull the ladder up should be treated with the same contempt as the same from the ESL Club owners wanting to do the same.

    Let the free market rip.
    And hand large numbers of councils in the Home Counties to the :LDs and Greens on a plate if you build over all the countryside.

    The Tories lost dozens of Southern councils in 2019 because of overdevelopment to the LDs or NOC and will lose even more if they ignore local residents.

    The issue is not a problem in the North or Midlands as they are far less densely populated than the south overall. Yes we need to build more affordable houses in the South where house prices are higher but in brownbelt land first.

    Not all homeowners always vote Tory anyway, eg Blair won those with a mortgage in 1997 and 2001 and 2005 while those who vote LD locally can start voting LD nationally as they did from 1997 to 2010
    It doesnt matter how much greenery you have, the utter fury held by a homeowner who might lose their nice view of someone elses land. Yes. The new love of all things green and wildlife. When it is absolutely nothing ever other than preservation of their house value.
    Greens suck this vote up. They are able to present the selfish narcissistic desire to not let anyone else share the area you live in and devalue your little nest egg and dress it up as a noble cause against species loss, rare orchids, newts and avoiding a climate catastrophe.

    Absolutely 100% correct.

    But the reality is that while the supposed fury is a transient hateful selfishness, even worse than the ESL in my eyes, its simply people being selfish but then life moves on.

    If someone wants "a nice view of someone else's land" the free market solution is to suggest they buy the land. If they don't, its not their land so if the person who does own it develops it then that's on them.

    But the reality is that while people might vote in a Council election or some other bollocks to stop a development if its up for debate, then once the development has occurred who really changes their vote?

    Is the old home owner seriously going to vote for a Corbyn because a new development occurred nearby? No, that doesn't happen.
    Is the new home owner seriously going to vote against a Corbyn because they now own their own home instead of living in a cramped, overcrowded house share paying extortionate rents? Yes.
    Entire councils can be lost on local plans... The single most over consulted set of documents done by any public body in the UK. Everything is quiet until the application is put in and a political opportunist can channel selfishness into a virtue.
    Absolutely. My ideal solution is to abolish planning consent. Complete and utter free market.

    If someone wants to manufacture a widget then they do so. If they want to manufacture more widgets they do so. The free market manages this.

    If someone owns land and wants to build on it, then so long as they meet legal requirements then they shouldn't need consent to do so, they should get on with it.
    So if I own Kinder Scout I get to build a concrete housing estate or a factory on it?

    Far too simplistic.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
    Yes, it's a variation on that. But the 20 minute twist is something I hadn't heard before. For me, and I'm addicted to both, the booze is the easier to kick. Thankfully no drugs other than those two have ever got a grip on me.
    It's also a variation on a weight loss technique. If you want seconds, leave it 15 minutes and have them if you're still hungry at that point.
    Pleased to report this is not a problem for me. I'm five ten and 11 stone. My weight never fluctuates by more than a pound or two. What a contrast with the PM. He's both quite a bit shorter than me and yet weighs considerably more. Much of that could be muscle, due to all the exercise he does, but I doubt this myself.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    You present as 58.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    kinabalu said:

    TimT said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kinabalu said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    If they smoked the tobacco, it is unlikely to have benefitted them......
    Given the age at which they died from many other causes until at least the 1920s, the transient pleasure working people got from smoking probably far outweighed the downsides.
    Do people get pleasure from smoking? Or does their body feel bad when they are not getting their next hit?

    The two are not the same, at least in my opinion. My lifetime smoking experience is probably in the hundreds of cigarettes but never really got any pleasure from it, not sure if others do, and if so how they distinguish it from their addiction being fed?
    I can answer this with the authority of somebody whose ciggie score is quarter of a million and counting.

    The logic of a smoking habit is akin to continually wearing shoes that are too tight in order to generate the relief of taking them off for 5 minutes every hour or so. There is no true pleasure in it. None at all.

    And "habit" above is the wrong word. It's not a habit. It's a drug addiction. A smoker ends up addicted to nicotine. Each cigarette quells the pangs that have been building since the last one - and as soon as you finish they start building again until you need the next one. Rat on a wheel.
    OK here is my own patent method for stopping smoking, which worked after several hundred other approaches hadn't.

    The most important rule is: if you want a cigarette you can have one.

    Rule 2: but not immediately. You can have one in exactly 20 minutes, not more and not less. You are not allowed to set any form of alarm.

    What happens is, you overshoot the 20 minutes because you are thinking about something else at the time. So you have to reset, and the same thing happens again. So you never actually get to a cigarette, but your subconscious never rebels because it never feels the panic of omg I am never allowed another cigarette.
    That certainly is one I've never come across. Well done for quitting. Especially if you were badly hooked. So how long before the cravings went for you?
    Can't remember: six months? After 20-30 a day x 20 years, and lots of failures. The method genuinely worked (and as far as I can tell is my own invention).
    Yep it's an original, no question. And sounds like you were a proper addict too. Really strong performance. I'll let you know if there's any good news with me on this front.
    It's eloquently described but it is not 'original'

    It is the exact same process advised by Narcotics Anonymous for heroin, cocaine, ket (and AA for booze I am sure).

    One Day At A Time

    You're not giving up forever, no no no, that's impossibly daunting: the addicted spirit rebels at the thought. You're just giving up for today. Tomorrow you will likely meet The Man again, and smoke The Beige again, but today, just today, for just these 24 hours, you will skip it.

    Rinse and repeat, day after day, then suddenly you wake up in 3 or 8 months and you no longer have the urge. One Day At A Time.
    Yes, it's a variation on that. But the 20 minute twist is something I hadn't heard before. For me, and I'm addicted to both, the booze is the easier to kick. Thankfully no drugs other than those two have ever got a grip on me.
    It's also a variation on a weight loss technique. If you want seconds, leave it 15 minutes and have them if you're still hungry at that point.
    Pleased to report this is not a problem for me. I'm five ten and 11 stone. My weight never fluctuates by more than a pound or two. What a contrast with the PM. He's both quite a bit shorter than me and yet weighs considerably more. Much of that could be muscle, due to all the exercise he does, but I doubt this myself.
    The passage of time will provide you with the answer.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774
    It is great to see the Alliance party getting a long awaited and long deserved surge in support.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    edited April 2021
    I don't get the mindset, I must happily confess. If I did I'd be making a couch appointment pronto.
  • TimT said:

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...

    Women under 30, Pfizer. Men under 30, AZN or J&J
    Is some of this shock that vaccines cause side effects because of the MMR debate? Not because the claims couldnt be replicated from the study done by Wakefield, but in an attempt to over compensate, the advice is that vaccines are perfectly safe?

    Vaccines are not perfectly safe they carry a risk. Children and adults regularly have reactions to vaccines, and occasionally they are fatal.

    But it is nuanced medical advice that says the risk from a vaccine is there but much smaller than the risk from catching the disease.
    I think most of it is that humans are pretty bad at risk assessment of this sort. All the evidence from multiple fields is that our emotional brain-based fight or flight response is highly adaptive to our origins, but our logical brain has a really hard time with numerical risk analysis.

    AND. People and corporations like certainty. Biology does not do certainties.

    AND ... then, of course, we just lose all capacity for logical thought when it comes to risks for our kids.
    And we end up with this kind of misinformation across many areas of society, where models are presented as scientific law, where bold faced lies are told to pregnant mums about the risk of drinking alcohol (there isnt any as long as you dont binge or drink heavily) in the noble lie that it will discourage those who drink too much from doing so.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    I think you can argue lockdowns should be a last resort but a lockdown was inevitable from October onwards last year - as I said at the time to dismay from many here - and to put it off for long is either incompetence or not caring about people dying.

    It was far from inevitable.

    Had it not been for the Kent variant then things would have played very differently.

    It was worth at least trying the tiers short of a lockdown too.
    -------"regardless of the bodies"
    If only his had been one of them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,774

    Can anyone explain to me how as a 38 year old I was invited for a vaccine on Friday? I thought April was going to be about prioritising second doses and that I'd be lucky to get a vaccine in May. I don't believe there has been a big increase in supply or vaccinations administered, so what gives? I fear it's due to refuseniks.

    Happy to be proved wrong.

    Most likely, you live in an area with relatively fewer older people and your local vaccination programme is running ahead of the national one.

    I get the impression that the supply of vaccine to the various distribution points hasn’t been that sophisticated, in terms of adjusting the amounts for the numbers of people in the priority categories living in each area. So some areas - like parts of London - are running ahead because they mopped up their older folk relatively quickly.

    The national programme is about to move down to the 40-45 age group, so your locality is running just over one category ahead.

    I doubt it has much to do with refusals - statistics suggests that no age group so far has run into significant levels of hesistancy.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,947
    Dura_Ace said:

    Charles said:



    I did agree with @Dura_Ace that military accommodation is woeful

    When I did my watchkeeping qualification on a T23 in the North Sea my berth was a mattress on top of three filing cabinets in close proximity to that of a junior engineering officer. The smell of his cock never failed to reach me on the many occasions throughout the night when he extracted it in order to pleasure himself.
    Where can you find pleasure, search the world for treasure ...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,314
    MattW said:

    Assuming the EU lets them export them.....

    Officials are close to finalising a deal to purchase tens of millions more doses of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine in time for a third booster dose to be given to the elderly this autumn.

    Government sources say they hope to roughly double the UK’s original order of 40 million jabs. If negotiations are successful, the extra stock may also be used for those in their twenties, who are be offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca jab.

    The NHS will start inviting those in their thirties for vaccines by the end of this week.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/86ae6592-a46e-11eb-9808-bf328d2144aa?shareToken=efd957e989f815e0dc2411bbc0509dc4

    That's an interesting story.

    I'm sure that I've seen commentary that the latest proposed EU order of 1.8bn or the 300m before (?) that had stuff about security of supply.

    It will be a real belly laugh if the UK emerge with a contract first again (see Moderna) because the EC have been pushing bits of paper around for weeks.

    Potentially being the world's first place to order Pfizer last year may give leverage or a pre-emption right ?
    If you were wanting to add capacity for vaccine manufacturing right now, you’d put it in Israel, UAE or UK - three countries that are close to finished with the first run of vaccination, and won’t be trying to block your exports!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    AnneJGP said:

    malcolmg said:

    ydoethur said:

    Once he is back from flying his whippet, professional northerner @TheScreamingEagles will be shocked to learn that gravity is racist according to his local university.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/24/isaac-newton-latest-historical-figure-swept-decolonisation-drive/

    Good Morning everyone. Not quite as bright this morning, but maybe a little warmer, possibly due to cloud cover.

    There is a site where one can check whether anyone's forebears were officially compensated for the loss of their slaves, and I'm pleased to say none of mine appear on it. Of course given my (real) surname I can't be sure.
    And I've no means of knowing whether any of them 'profited; in other ways...... served on slaving ships etc.
    Everyone in Britain profited from the slave trade. If they didn’t actually trade in them, they still provided the goods traded for slaves in West Africa, and built the ships used for transport, and above all they ate the sugar, smoked the tobacco and wore the cotton that was the upshot of it.

    That does not mean we should suddenly disown everyone involved and pretend it never happened, which - ironically, given their stated aims - is what is actually happening here.
    That is the irony. We are in danger of airbrushing slavery out of history.
    It was hundreds of years ago , give it a break , no-one nowadays has any clue about it and does not give a flying F*** about it either, apart from a few nutjobs who will move on to the crusades soon and cavemen after that.
    I'd rather we learned from the past to crack down on modern-day slavery. A much better form of atonement for past sins.

    Good morning, everybody.
    Exactly , if half the effort was put into modern day slavery it would be huge , instead all these woke halfwits wail and gnash their teeth about things that happened nearly 300 years ago, it is a F***** up world for sure.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209

    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    Jonathan said:

    In the British system the crown is where we focus palaces, posh wallpaper, gold and glitz, the pm is not a president.

    The pms job is to work away from all the tempting baubles that separate them from us. It is one of our systems key strengths.

    The bottom line is the pm is paid enough to wallpaper a flat and should get on the it like the rest of us.

    FWIW when my grandmother moved into admiralty arch it was absolutely hideous. The allowance was utter ridiculous. Fortunately she was able and rolling to refurbish it out of her own pocket but it is pathetic that we expect senior state executives to live in substandard accommodation
    They expect millions to live in very substandard accommodation , who cannot afford to upgrade it from their ill gotten gains. Why should they expect the public to give them even more largesse than they filch already. Parasites.
    Yep - my heart bleeds for Mrs Great Grandmother Charles. Many of us have suffered the trauma of having been gifted an apartment at the top of the Mall and a decorating allowance.

    The indignity of it.
    Mrs RP has just pointed out that when she ran away from an abusive relationship and fell on Sheffield Council for help, they moved her into a small studio apartment in a demilitarised zone where all the walls were painted in industrial grey, and gave her an "utterly ridiculous" £60 redecoration allowance.

    Happily she was able to refurbish it out of her own pocket, but as @Charles said it is pathetic that we expect ordinary people to live in substandard accomodation.
    RP it was my goodself that mentioned the poor , you surely don't imagine Charles would know anything about or have a care for the poor other than to say "let them eat cake", for him poor is people down to their last 5 million @RochdalePioneers
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    Sandpit said:

    Monkeys said:

    Nicola Sturgeon has accepted there would have to be a border between England and an independent Scotland but insisted businesses and trade would not “suffer” because of it.

    The SNP leader said Scotland would try to negotiate arrangements to “keep trade flowing easily across the border” if it becomes independent and rejoins the European Union.

    The First Minister said an independent Scotland would “comply with all of the requirements of EU membership” when asked about European Union regulations, customs checks and inspections of goods entering the single market.


    https://news.stv.tv/politics/independent-scotland-would-need-border-but-trade-wont-suffer?top

    She was all over the place

    Shifty, evasive and frankly embarrassing

    Scotland can do better than this
    There's two "if's," there, the second one being and implication we'd rejoin the EU. Has she said whether that would be subject to another referendum yet?
    I’d love someone to ask her what would happen if the U.K. acted like the EU did, and insisted that the only two things up for discussion in the first stage of the independence process were the money and the border - with the U.K. side insisting that there can never be a physical border between England and Scotland.
    Be none of their business , we can put up the barb wire and machine gun towers if we want once we are independent.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,209
    Taz said:

    "No"

    Patrick Harvie was the latest to take part in our leaders phone-in

    Among those calling the @scottishgreens co-leader this morning was Marion - who asked about the Gender Recognition Act

    “Can he confirm what a woman is?”


    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/1386285110522257409?s=20

    Shouldn’t he simply call her a TERF and disconnect her ?
    Harvie claims anyone who thinks they are a woman is indeed a woman, the clown is not the full shilling. You have to be soft in the head to be voting Scottish Greens.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 70,513

    TimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Another possible very rare side effect, this time with the Pfizer vaccine.

    Israel said probing link between Pfizer shot and heart problem in men under 30
    https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-probing-link-between-pfizer-shot-and-heart-problem-in-men-under-30/
    ... The report said that out of more than 5 million people vaccinated in Israel, there were 62 recorded cases of myocarditis in the days after the shot. It found that 56 of those cases came after the second shot and most of the affected were men under 30.

    The report said that 60 of the patients were treated and released from hospital in good condition. Two of the patients, who were reportedly healthy until receiving the vaccination, including a 22-year-old woman and a 35-year-old man, died.

    “The findings were presented to the Pfizer company who replied that they had not had similar reports in the rest of the world and would examine the data,” an excerpt from the report said, adding that the details had also been sent to the US FDA and CDC, who were also investigating...

    Women under 30, Pfizer. Men under 30, AZN or J&J
    Is some of this shock that vaccines cause side effects because of the MMR debate? Not because the claims couldnt be replicated from the study done by Wakefield, but in an attempt to over compensate, the advice is that vaccines are perfectly safe?

    Vaccines are not perfectly safe they carry a risk. Children and adults regularly have reactions to vaccines, and occasionally they are fatal.

    But it is nuanced medical advice that says the risk from a vaccine is there but much smaller than the risk from catching the disease.
    The incidence here was something around 1 in 100k, and only two out of sixty with fatal consequences.
    I don’t know what the figure for Covid itself is, but for flu, something like 10% of those infected get some form of myocarditis.
This discussion has been closed.