Excellent header from Cyclefree but way too short. You're just getting into it and then wham bam it's all over.
Naughty.....
But very funny.
Anyway, today it is raining. But I come from hardy stock. And I have an anorak with a hood - a very stylish purple one, as it happens. And boots.
Having put up some trellis on the wall outside a bedroom window, I promised myself last night that I would go to the garden centre to choose some climbers. I can't spend all day hanging round with weirdos on the internet (joke: I love you all, really).
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
There are a number of nasty things that Australian farmers do that are banned in the EU, including mulesing of sheep (the removal of skin and flesh around the animal's anus without anaesthetic):
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
These practices would need to be adopted here or our farmers would be at a competitive disadvantage.
This isn't what people voted for or what the government promised.
Hey, you're back. Excellent. God there's been some reductive reactionary triumphalism on here the last few months that you've missed out on the chance of combating.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
As the Huffington Post notes, Corbyn’s office told Guido on Monday he “doesn’t normally comment on personal health matters”. His own Islington council area, however, now has the fourth lowest vaccine uptake of all local authorities, at just 38.3%.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
And as you've been told multiple times the US does not want labels on their meat because they do not want consumers to have that choice.
And as I've said multiple times that is not true. America loves labelling.
Anyone who thinks that Americans don't want "made in America" allowed to be labelled on stuff has never been to America.
You roll out the same misunderstanding again. That deals with labelling of overseas food in the US. It does not deal with labelling of US food over here. US trade negotiators have made it repeatedly clear that they oppose such labelling because they fear that it would give people the information needed to refuse such meat.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
I agree, tenuous connection with Diana's death. Nevertheless the methods used by Bashir were beyond the pale and the cover-up by the BBC shameful. It seems aggravated in hindsight because of Diana's death that is both tragic and banal.
I found William's take interesting. In particular that mention of the 'false narrative' about the Charles and Diana marriage. Perhaps the driver there was anger on behalf of his dad.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
I have been involved in multiple internal investigations in the NHS, both as a staff-side representative and as agent of the Medical Director. The biggest reason that the investigations wind up inconclusive is that the level of proof required is such that an unfair dismissal case or suspension is not secure.
These going against the Trust can go on for years, and cost millions. Hence there tends to a slap on the wrist, no real resolution and often a toxic atmosphere in the department for years, before one party leaves, often "due to ill health" , and frequently the bullied or whistle-blower.
I think it is the same in police and other large organisations, public and private. We need a better, less confrontational way of resolution.
As the Huffington Post notes, Corbyn’s office told Guido on Monday he “doesn’t normally comment on personal health matters”. His own Islington council area, however, now has the fourth lowest vaccine uptake of all local authorities, at just 38.3%.
38%....that can't be right, surely?
It can. All sorts of areas of London are way behind the national average of 70%. I just checked the dashboard, that figure is correct.
Perhaps it is, but it begs questions about what it has to offer if it isn't a rehash of the 1980s myths. Though the 1980s sloganising tended to run on the lines of no return to the 1930s.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
If people want to buy Red Tractor meat let them do so. If supermarkets want Union Flags on their meat let them do so. If companies like McDonald's want to advertise that they use "100% British and Irish" meat let them do so.
If consumers want to buy Aussie beef let them do so. Its very good quality stuff in general and good value for money.
Free choice.
I think a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the USA would be fantastic news - but I can't see the Americans agreeing to it unlike the Aussies.
And as you've been told multiple times the US does not want labels on their meat because they do not want consumers to have that choice.
And as I've said multiple times that is not true. America loves labelling.
Anyone who thinks that Americans don't want "made in America" allowed to be labelled on stuff has never been to America.
You roll out the same misunderstanding again. That deals with labelling of overseas food in the US. It does not deal with labelling of US food over here. US trade negotiators have made it repeatedly clear that they oppose such labelling because they fear that it would give people the information needed to refuse such meat.
Negotiators can say whatever they want to say, the trade agreements they've actually signed - like our trade agreements we've actually signed - have always had them in favour of Country of Origin Labelling.
If they make this a red line, we can too, in which case no deal is signed. In which case we move on. If on the other hand they don't, as they haven't in the past and in line with their own domestic laws, then great we can get a deal.
As the Huffington Post notes, Corbyn’s office told Guido on Monday he “doesn’t normally comment on personal health matters”. His own Islington council area, however, now has the fourth lowest vaccine uptake of all local authorities, at just 38.3%.
38%....that can't be right, surely?
It can. All sorts of areas of London are way behind the national average of 70%.
Build a wall around the place and make them pay for it.....
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
There are a number of nasty things that Australian farmers do that are banned in the EU, including mulesing of sheep (the removal of skin and flesh around the animal's anus without anaesthetic):
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
These practices would need to be adopted here or our farmers would be at a competitive disadvantage.
This isn't what people voted for or what the government promised.
Hey, you're back. Excellent. God there's been some reductive reactionary triumphalism on here the last few months that you've missed out on the chance of combating.
Yes it got very boring. I'm not sure I'll stay even though deserting you weighed on my conscience. Arguing with right-wing people on the Internet is one of the less productive uses of one's time.
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
There are a number of nasty things that Australian farmers do that are banned in the EU, including mulesing of sheep (the removal of skin and flesh around the animal's anus without anaesthetic):
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
I can’t remember the current Brexiteer position as to whether it’s a good or a bad thing to use the prospect of violence in relation to Brexit and NI. I know the people who negotiated the protocol at the time and said it was a triumph are now saying it’s a load of crap..
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
There are a number of nasty things that Australian farmers do that are banned in the EU, including mulesing of sheep (the removal of skin and flesh around the animal's anus without anaesthetic):
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
These practices would need to be adopted here or our farmers would be at a competitive disadvantage.
This isn't what people voted for or what the government promised.
Hey, you're back. Excellent. God there's been some reductive reactionary triumphalism on here the last few months that you've missed out on the chance of combating.
Yes it got very boring. I'm not sure I'll stay even though deserting you weighed on my conscience. Arguing with right-wing people on the Internet is one of the less productive uses of one's time.
Conversions are indeed few and far between. And in the spirit of your undeniably true last sentence, I'm OFF.
I can’t remember the current Brexiteer position as to whether it’s a good or a bad thing to use the prospect of violence in relation to Brexit and NI. I know the people who negotiated the protocol at the time and said it was a triumph are now saying it’s a load of crap..
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
I agree with much of that. Indeed, Patrick Holden, Director of the Sustainable Food Trust, says:
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
I'm liking "intensively produced ... diary products" (which I assume is in the source as you've copy-pasted?). Is Filofax still a thing then?
More seriously, with any of this kind of analysis you have to choose what effects you include in your calculation and so it's quite posisble to get different answers without actually fiddling the figures, but still getting the answer you want. Beef rather than intense crop farming in England may also be a very different answer to beef versus rainforest in South America.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
I have been involved in multiple internal investigations in the NHS, both as a staff-side representative and as agent of the Medical Director. The biggest reason that the investigations wind up inconclusive is that the level of proof required is such that an unfair dismissal case or suspension is not secure.
These going against the Trust can go on for years, and cost millions. Hence there tends to a slap on the wrist, no real resolution and often a toxic atmosphere in the department for years, before one party leaves, often "due to ill health" , and frequently the bullied or whistle-blower.
I think it is the same in police and other large organisations, public and private. We need a better, less confrontational way of resolution.
An investigation - a good one - should find out what went wrong. Whether or not someone gets disciplined or sacked should be a secondary consideration. And a good investigation should - if there are reasons for sacking someone, be good enough to provide that evidence. Obviously that depends in part in internal policies and evidence of medical malpractice is very different to the sort of stuff I was dealing with so I defer to you on that.
Some of the problems you describe can arise because there is a lack of focus on what the investigation is for. And poor management in dealing with the issues arising as a result of an investigation happening. That too is something which investigators need to help manage.
I believe that an investigation should be there primarily to understand what happened, put matters right and learn lessons to stop the same thing happening again. Discipline is an important part of that. But an investigation should not be primarily an employment issue.
In all the ones I did which led to disciplinaries or sackings, not one was challenged or overturned on appeal. Nor was an employment case ever lost.
But the NHS has I think even more complexity and I suspect that sometimes doctors and nurses are scapegoated for failings of management.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
I notice that Matthew Scott evaded my first question and has so far failed to answer my second, while putting the boot into Matthew Parris, quite eloquently, but rather missing the point.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
I agree, tenuous connection with Diana's death. Nevertheless the methods used by Bashir were beyond the pale and the cover-up by the BBC shameful. It seems aggravated in hindsight because of Diana's death that is both tragic and banal.
I found William's take interesting. In particular that mention of the 'false narrative' about the Charles and Diana marriage. Perhaps the driver there was anger on behalf of his dad.
But what access does he think he has to the true narrative? Who really knows anything about their parents marriage?
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
I have been involved in multiple internal investigations in the NHS, both as a staff-side representative and as agent of the Medical Director. The biggest reason that the investigations wind up inconclusive is that the level of proof required is such that an unfair dismissal case or suspension is not secure.
These going against the Trust can go on for years, and cost millions. Hence there tends to a slap on the wrist, no real resolution and often a toxic atmosphere in the department for years, before one party leaves, often "due to ill health" , and frequently the bullied or whistle-blower.
I think it is the same in police and other large organisations, public and private. We need a better, less confrontational way of resolution.
A friend stood for Parliament to highlight this exact issue, and the NHS compensation backlog, in 2015. I'm not an expert on this, so I can't tell whether this is spot on or up to date.
Among the most crucial reforms, she says, is the repeal of a 1948 law which means, bizarrely, that when patients sue the NHS, their damages are calculated on the basis they will pay for private healthcare for the rest of their lives – even though many will continue to be treated in the public sector, at public cost.
‘I saw this time and again,’ Susanne says. ‘Someone would get a huge settlement, but not fork out a penny on care. Meanwhile big awards, running into millions, are assessed on the basis that the beneficiary will live for several decades. But if they die a few years later, nothing goes back to the NHS. They can leave it to their relatives or a dogs’ home. This has to change.’
However, the biggest change she wants is more fundamental: an end to the legal lottery that means two patients with identical needs will be treated differently – one receiving millions, and the other nothing. ‘Take, for example, a cerebral palsy patient. The case will probably come down to something in the medical notes that a lawyer can argue means the midwife was absent for 19 minutes. These claims aren’t based on need, but on a narrow, legal definition of fault.
‘So they drag on for years. And it means a doctor or a hospital can never say sorry, which is all many patients want – because to do so will mean admitting liability.’
The last time the Government appointed a commission to examine this situation in 1978, it recommended a ‘no fault’ system be investigated
What really makes me laugh about the Australia negotiations was the revelation that Liar had "being seen to diverge from the EU" as his key negotiating objective, not in getting a deal that is good for the UK. Hence the Gove/Eustace "here is how trade works you pillock" axis which appears now to have been defeated by the "we had no idea Dover - Calais was a thing" axis.
Scottish fishing and now Scottish farming screwed by Westminster who don't know and don't care. A powerful case for the union...
The terms of the trade deal with Australia will be almost exactly the same as the terms of the EU trade deal we now have.
There will not be zero tariffs with Australia for at least 15 years by which time a different government will likely be in power anyway.
As was correctly pointed out on QT last night the main market Australian farmers are targeting is China and the Asian market not the UK anyway while British farmers will get easier access for their exports to Australia
The real problem is that it sells the pass for the much more important US trade deal: it will now be impossible to conclude that without similar terms. The US agribusinesses certainly will destroy much of British farming if they have free access to undercut them.
It's a small sector of the economy and it will make food marginally cheaper. Whether that's worth losing much of our farming tradition is a question that we can debate, but it's a real one. I'm by no means a traditionalist, and I have an ulterior motive - I disapprove of the very low welfare staandards in much of Australian and US agriculture. But I'd have thought Conservative MPs would be dubious anyway.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
There are a number of nasty things that Australian farmers do that are banned in the EU, including mulesing of sheep (the removal of skin and flesh around the animal's anus without anaesthetic):
Also, chlorinated chicken (meaning poor welfare standards for chickens), battery farming, sow stalls, hormone-treated beef, live exports and animals transported for 48 hours without rest.
These practices would need to be adopted here or our farmers would be at a competitive disadvantage.
This isn't what people voted for or what the government promised.
Hey, you're back. Excellent. God there's been some reductive reactionary triumphalism on here the last few months that you've missed out on the chance of combating.
Yes it got very boring. I'm not sure I'll stay even though deserting you weighed on my conscience. Arguing with right-wing people on the Internet is one of the less productive uses of one's time.
Conversions are indeed few and far between. And in the spirit of your undeniably true last sentence, I'm OFF.
I move that right wing conversion therapy is an abhorrent practice and this Government should make it illegal forthwith.
We are born with our political opinions rather than choosing them, and any attempt* at overriding that is doomed to fail, with horrible consequences for the individual affected.
*Except for naturally becoming more conservative as we age, obviously.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
I notice that Matthew Scott evaded my first question and has so far failed to answer my second, while putting the boot into Matthew Parris, quite eloquently, but rather missing the point.
One thing I find impressive is the way that some "travellers" have exploited the differential in the planning system - some the "invasions" are arranged to get planning permission established, with the cooperation of the land owner.
There is an interesting article to write on miss-use of such cultural privileges. In the US, for example, there is a nice little corrupt scam involving preference for companies "owned" by minorities, veterans etc. Work is passed through nominal shell companies.... Strangely this ends up with the minority in question getting very little benefit...
EDIT - according to the latest data, Richmond seems to be doing about the national average in terms of percentages vaccinated per age group.
That's a fair point, you do have to account for the differing demographics, but if the most prosperous parts of London are only average at vaccinating that doesn't detract from the broader point about London as whole not keeping up.
EDIT - according to the latest data, Richmond seems to be doing about the national average in terms of percentages vaccinated per age group.
That's a fair point, you do have to account for the differing demographics, but if the most prosperous parts of London are only average at vaccinating that doesn't detract from the broader point about London as whole not keeping up.
Yes - that is why the MSOA data is so valuable. Just a few thousand people in each area.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
In my (searingly personal) experience internal investigations sometimes have a predetermined outcome in the form of who is to be scapegoated for something that went wrong in a large organization. Said person being senior enough for it to not look risible but not of a level that would raise "issues" for the blowers of noses into silk handkerchiefs (aka the board).
I have been involved in multiple internal investigations in the NHS, both as a staff-side representative and as agent of the Medical Director. The biggest reason that the investigations wind up inconclusive is that the level of proof required is such that an unfair dismissal case or suspension is not secure.
These going against the Trust can go on for years, and cost millions. Hence there tends to a slap on the wrist, no real resolution and often a toxic atmosphere in the department for years, before one party leaves, often "due to ill health" , and frequently the bullied or whistle-blower.
I think it is the same in police and other large organisations, public and private. We need a better, less confrontational way of resolution.
NHS Trusts can be really bad in my (secondhand, anecdotal) experience (plenty of stories to google also). Amazing how often those whistleblowing about standards of care mysteriously become subject to investigations shortly after they complained.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
If a company or party had admitted to such a pivotal role in your mother's death I'm pretty sure you'd want to denounce said company too. I know I would. Don't blame William or Harry if they lay into the BBC about this.
Given that Princess Di's death is purely down to a drunk driver in Paris I wouldn't call it a pivotal role unless the BBC were doing a free bar in the Ritz that night.
I agree, tenuous connection with Diana's death. Nevertheless the methods used by Bashir were beyond the pale and the cover-up by the BBC shameful. It seems aggravated in hindsight because of Diana's death that is both tragic and banal.
I found William's take interesting. In particular that mention of the 'false narrative' about the Charles and Diana marriage. Perhaps the driver there was anger on behalf of his dad.
But what access does he think he has to the true narrative? Who really knows anything about their parents marriage?
Not to sound self pitying (and 'twas in another country, And besides, they both are dead), but I think generally kids from a broken marriage know a lot more than they want to about their parents' marriage. That must be magnified a hundred fold with the reptiles and the BBC trumpeting every twist and turn.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it. Rejoin isn't going to be on the menu until after the next GE at least. Johnson is going at it like a Mustang driver leaving Cars and Coffee.
Because it's a show. A brand. Everything to do with performance and nothing to do with content.
Given that nobody (rich and white) is ever held accountable for anything in this country, he probably could afford to ease back. Won't though.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
35% for adults. Really low !
Bassetlaw is at 50%. For second doses...
Hmmmmm
according to the latest release
Age National Tower Hill Under 40 24.23% 16.28% 40-44 64.23% 54.40% 45-49 75.32% 65.87% 50-54 83.70% 77.52% 55-59 86.47% 80.24% 60-64 88.78% 81.38% 65-69 91.60% 83.90% 70-74 94.09% 87.40% 75-79 95.13% 87.06% 80+ 94.87% 87.70%
Tower Hill is behind, significantly. But not by that much.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
EDIT - according to the latest data, Richmond seems to be doing about the national average in terms of percentages vaccinated per age group.
That's a fair point, you do have to account for the differing demographics, but if the most prosperous parts of London are only average at vaccinating that doesn't detract from the broader point about London as whole not keeping up.
London is clearly not keeping up but it is unlikely to be as bad the numbers suggest. Estimates are 700k EU people left London since the pandemic. Other Londoners will have gone to their second homes and get vaccinated there. Also how accurate are the records? Until last year my nominal GP practice was where I lived in 2002 when I last visited a GP. There must be similarly hundreds of thousands of people who registered in London as a student, first job, but not needed a GP after leaving?
At a guess I would say 10-20% of the London NHS roll is not actually living in London in 2021.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
It's a bit of both of those, but there is also undoubtedly a vaccine hesitancy issue. Hard to say which effect dominates.
Unfortunately, we won't need the census numbers - we'll see it in hospital admissions way before that.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Not sure about the figures being quoted (see below)
According to the latest weekly release, Tower Hill is about 7.5% behind the England average
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Not sure about the figures being quoted (see below)
According to the latest weekly release, Tower Hill is about 7.5% behind the England average
London is clearly not keeping up but it is unlikely to be as bad the numbers suggest. Estimates are 700k EU people left London since the pandemic. Other Londoners will have gone to their second homes and get vaccinated there. Also how accurate are the records? Until last year my nominal GP practice was where I lived in 2002 when I last visited a GP. There must be similarly hundreds of thousands of people who registered in London as a student, first job, but not needed a GP after leaving?
At a guess I would say 10-20% of the London NHS roll is not actually living in London in 2021.
Of course all sorts of issues with population and data are going to apply, but I don't think they can account for all of the differencce. London simply seems to be going slower at vaccinating and have a lower uptake.
On topic, I think BaFin was completely taken in by Wirecard. They bought into this narrative that shortsellers were conspiracy (and paying off) journalists to write lies.
The reality, of course, is that Wirecard was a complete fraud.
(And it is one of those strange ironies that Wirecard was one of those few stocks that Zero Hedge used to pump up, rather than dump down on. Now that's a relationship that should be probed.)
To be fair they did probably make the assumption german financial regulators were competent
To those who know the history of Douche Bank - the real question is about the honesty of the German regulators.
I’ve just finished Dark Towers.
OMFG!
Worth a read for anyone with even a marginal interest in the subject
I've just ordered Dark Towers on your recommendation. Aren't they Donald Trump's banker of choice?
Mainly because no one else will touch him... in part because he owes Deutsche so much that few other banks would go near him.
Plus Deutsche's close connections with Russia ......
Did they pay for Boris's Russian donations tennis matches
London is clearly not keeping up but it is unlikely to be as bad the numbers suggest. Estimates are 700k EU people left London since the pandemic. Other Londoners will have gone to their second homes and get vaccinated there. Also how accurate are the records? Until last year my nominal GP practice was where I lived in 2002 when I last visited a GP. There must be similarly hundreds of thousands of people who registered in London as a student, first job, but not needed a GP after leaving?
At a guess I would say 10-20% of the London NHS roll is not actually living in London in 2021.
Of course all sorts of issues with population and data are going to apply, but I don't think they can account for all of the differencce. London simply seems to be going slower at vaccinating and have a lower uptake.
As Malmesbury points out age is the big one. Londoners can't be blamed for that!
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Not sure about the figures being quoted (see below)
According to the latest weekly release, Tower Hill is about 7.5% behind the England average
At those rates I think it will be more to do with people having left London than vaccine hesitancy.
Tower Hill is a posh area though, Tower Hamlets is where you might see more vaccine hesitancy.
There are posh bits - but lots and lots of very poor people.
Brent is quite poor, incidentally..
It's when you look at the MSOA level numbers, which are of the order of 10-20K people, that you really see what is going on. The low take up areas are small patches within the larger areas. It's not all of Brent - but Harlesden, Church End etc....
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
I agree with much of that. Indeed, Patrick Holden, Director of the Sustainable Food Trust, says:
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
I'm liking "intensively produced ... diary products" (which I assume is in the source as you've copy-pasted?). Is Filofax still a thing then?
More seriously, with any of this kind of analysis you have to choose what effects you include in your calculation and so it's quite posisble to get different answers without actually fiddling the figures, but still getting the answer you want. Beef rather than intense crop farming in England may also be a very different answer to beef versus rainforest in South America.
Yes, there's good beef and bad beef.
I certainly wouldn't buy Brazilian beef, for example - I don't agree with levelling rainforest for pasture. But, using natural grass uplands in the UK that can't be used for crops is a different story.
BTW, has anyone heard from Tony Hall about this? He not only carried out the original investigation but then re-hired Bashir years later when Hall was DG
I notice that Matthew Scott evaded my first question and has so far failed to answer my second, while putting the boot into Matthew Parris, quite eloquently, but rather missing the point.
One thing I find impressive is the way that some "travellers" have exploited the differential in the planning system - some the "invasions" are arranged to get planning permission established, with the cooperation of the land owner.
There is an interesting article to write on miss-use of such cultural privileges. In the US, for example, there is a nice little corrupt scam involving preference for companies "owned" by minorities, veterans etc. Work is passed through nominal shell companies.... Strangely this ends up with the minority in question getting very little benefit...
What I dislike is the dishonesty in Mr Scott's approach. He criticises rightly some of the things Matthew Parris gets wrong. He is eloquent on the prejudice suffered. But when it comes to the question: what to do when someone goes onto someone's land without permission, he says that yes they can be evicted. And that there are laws to do that.
In essence his answer is no different to Parris's. But he ignores the problem of the failure to enforce those laws and he doesn't say why - or in what circumstances - he would not evict or what this means for those affected. And it is this which goes to the heart of the problem: the unequal and unfair application of the law so that some crimes/breaches are overlooked because of some irrelevant consideration.
So his criticism of Parris is an eloquent rant I am afraid which does not deal with the issues which Parris raises.
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
They are injected with synthetic growth hormones that are illegal in Europe
Funny how you're now such a fan of Non Tariff Barriers.
Its entirely safe and there's no scientific or health reason not to do it.
"According to research by the European Federation of Animal Health, a single consumer would need to eat more than 77 kilograms of beef from an HGP-treated beast in one sitting to get the same level of oestrogen hormone found in one egg."
It's perhaps worth noting that, as far as I can ascertain, EFAH has been subsumed into IFAH which is described as "The International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) is the global representative body of companies engaged in research, development, manufacturing and commercialisation of veterinary medicines, vaccines and other animal health products in both developed and developing countries across the five continents."[1]
It would not be a stretch to describe the research as "industry funded" and there are some interesting studies on the differences between industry and non-industry funded research on, e.g. a whole load of human pharmaceuticals.
But anyway, isn't the concern (like with "chlorine chicken") more about what this might mean for animal welfare, not for human health?
London is clearly not keeping up but it is unlikely to be as bad the numbers suggest. Estimates are 700k EU people left London since the pandemic. Other Londoners will have gone to their second homes and get vaccinated there. Also how accurate are the records? Until last year my nominal GP practice was where I lived in 2002 when I last visited a GP. There must be similarly hundreds of thousands of people who registered in London as a student, first job, but not needed a GP after leaving?
At a guess I would say 10-20% of the London NHS roll is not actually living in London in 2021.
Of course all sorts of issues with population and data are going to apply, but I don't think they can account for all of the differencce. London simply seems to be going slower at vaccinating and have a lower uptake.
As Malmesbury points out age is the big one. Londoners can't be blamed for that!
The gaps are quite stable across the age bands which suggests that population mobility isn't the issue. When people move, it is generally true that there is an age differential.
This is the producers’ side of the argument for why that’s ok. I can see why this might be troubling to a vegetarian but not to a meat eater. What’s the argument against beyond “you kill them sooner” which is the flip side of the efficiency gains posted here?
I can seem some discussion about one hormone being linked to cancer, and I’d want to see the numbers on that. But currently, I can’t find a killer argument against.
I don't give a shit about evidence, anything that can even have the chance to have been stuffed with growth hormones they can stick up their jacksies.
I notice that Matthew Scott evaded my first question and has so far failed to answer my second, while putting the boot into Matthew Parris, quite eloquently, but rather missing the point.
One thing I find impressive is the way that some "travellers" have exploited the differential in the planning system - some the "invasions" are arranged to get planning permission established, with the cooperation of the land owner.
There is an interesting article to write on miss-use of such cultural privileges. In the US, for example, there is a nice little corrupt scam involving preference for companies "owned" by minorities, veterans etc. Work is passed through nominal shell companies.... Strangely this ends up with the minority in question getting very little benefit...
What I dislike is the dishonesty in Mr Scott's approach. He criticises rightly some of the things Matthew Parris gets wrong. He is eloquent on the prejudice suffered. But when it comes to the question: what to do when someone goes onto someone's land without permission, he says that yes they can be evicted. And that there are laws to do that.
In essence his answer is no different to Parris's. But he ignores the problem of the failure to enforce those laws and he doesn't say why - or in what circumstances - he would not evict or what this means for those affected. And it is this which goes to the heart of the problem: the unequal and unfair application of the law so that some crimes/breaches are overlooked because of some irrelevant consideration.
So his criticism of Parris is an eloquent rant I am afraid which does not deal with the issues which Parris raises.
I don't have a problem with accommodating a number of people who like living a free and nomadic lifestyle but, and we have to engage with this, crime and anti-social behaviour invariably spikes near such sites.
I will listen to arguments of discrimination in education and employment that drives that behaviour in desperation, and how we can help. However, I won't accept that's a "cultural" thing we must tolerate.
I notice that Matthew Scott evaded my first question and has so far failed to answer my second, while putting the boot into Matthew Parris, quite eloquently, but rather missing the point.
One thing I find impressive is the way that some "travellers" have exploited the differential in the planning system - some the "invasions" are arranged to get planning permission established, with the cooperation of the land owner.
There is an interesting article to write on miss-use of such cultural privileges. In the US, for example, there is a nice little corrupt scam involving preference for companies "owned" by minorities, veterans etc. Work is passed through nominal shell companies.... Strangely this ends up with the minority in question getting very little benefit...
What I dislike is the dishonesty in Mr Scott's approach. He criticises rightly some of the things Matthew Parris gets wrong. He is eloquent on the prejudice suffered. But when it comes to the question: what to do when someone goes onto someone's land without permission, he says that yes they can be evicted. And that there are laws to do that.
In essence his answer is no different to Parris's. But he ignores the problem of the failure to enforce those laws and he doesn't say why - or in what circumstances - he would not evict or what this means for those affected. And it is this which goes to the heart of the problem: the unequal and unfair application of the law so that some crimes/breaches are overlooked because of some irrelevant consideration.
So his criticism of Parris is an eloquent rant I am afraid which does not deal with the issues which Parris raises.
A farmer I used to drink with told me the following - over the years, he has suffered quite a bit of theft. Big ticket items of machinery as well as small stuff. The police were never really interested, never followed up etc..
He decided to put a roof on an old stone building in the corner of a field, as a store. Figured he could make it really secure. Within the day, the planning inspectors (with police escort!) were out, checking that he wasn't building a house.
He suggested that next time he sees people sneaking onto his land, he report them for trespass with criminal intent to create a habitable property.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Not sure about the figures being quoted (see below)
According to the latest weekly release, Tower Hill is about 7.5% behind the England average
At those rates I think it will be more to do with people having left London than vaccine hesitancy.
Tower Hill is a posh area though, Tower Hamlets is where you might see more vaccine hesitancy.
There are posh bits - but lots and lots of very poor people.
Brent is quite poor, incidentally..
It's when you look at the MSOA level numbers, which are of the order of 10-20K people, that you really see what is going on. The low take up areas are small patches within the larger areas. It's not all of Brent - but Harlesden, Church End etc....
Not sure what your data source is defining as Tower Hill? There are definitely not lots of very poor people actually in Tower Hill at all, but if you go a couple of miles radius around it then there are.
If you mean Tower Hamlets then yes it has lots of very poor people.
I'm not sure what I make of William's statement. I mean, he's right but I'm not sure about reading out such an excoriating attack on the BBC in public.
I prefer the Queen's method; she'd have released a carefully worded statement loaded with meaning using words like "disappointed" and "hope we can all move forwards together from this" etc.
One of the lies told was that he was spying on his mother. I imagine he feels this very personally. I thought it was a very dignified statement. Note his very firm demand that the interview never be shown again.
Effectively, he's saying "stop tormenting us for your own entertainment" a point I make in my header.
And it seems to me in line with what the RF has been saying lately - that personal family disputes are matters which should be resolved in private. Without wishing to do exactly what I criticise others for, this seemed to me to be a message to more than just the BBC.
I am aghast really at how poor all these internal investigations are. I shouldn't be I suppose. But they are really shockingly bad.
You'll have far more experience than I do and my perception is that internal investigations have an innate conflict of interest - it priorities avoiding embarrassment and a quiet life above anything else.
Well my investigations certainly didn't do that!
But yes - an internal investigations team has to have independence to do its job and to be trusted, both internally and externally. That requires strong leadership and a very clear understanding by the team about what they are doing and why, a refusal to be bullied, a thick skin. It also requires good governance ie reporting lines need to be sufficiently independent and an ability to manage conflicts of interest properly, including bringing people in from outside where necessary.
Above all, it needs the organisation at a senior level to understand the value of such a team and the work it does.That is what is often missing because until you have had a near death experience from the failure to do these things properly you don't really see the value and do prioritise minimising embarrassment etc as you say.
My time at my bank could have been characterised in two halves: before the financial crisis, I did a great job, built up my credit, everyone loved me for sorting out their messes but very hard to get the budget and resources I really needed and no-one really listened when I told them these were more than 1 or 2 rotten apples.
After: it was all "Oh shit, you were right. Thank God you're here. What do you need? We must listen to you. We're going to show your talks to all our regulators and staff to show how we take this stuff seriously." (The phrase "I fucking told you so!" may even have been expressed, once or twice.)
From Cassandra to some sort of Superwoman.
I see the same issues in other sectors. I have written about this on my work blog. But finance was lucky in really being forced to confront its failings. Most other sectors and organizations aren't and don't want to. Which is why you get the same thing going on over and over again. See the police. Or the NHS, for example.
That was what I was trying to get at earlier - the difference between an active coverup, and the turning a very blind eye to what might be fairly obvious. The latter is perhaps much more common than the former ?
You're the expert here Nick - but are Australian farm animals really kept in worse conditions than European ones? It seems unlikely.
They are injected with synthetic growth hormones that are illegal in Europe
Funny how you're now such a fan of Non Tariff Barriers.
Its entirely safe and there's no scientific or health reason not to do it.
"According to research by the European Federation of Animal Health, a single consumer would need to eat more than 77 kilograms of beef from an HGP-treated beast in one sitting to get the same level of oestrogen hormone found in one egg."
It's perhaps worth noting that, as far as I can ascertain, EFAH has been subsumed into IFAH which is described as "The International Federation for Animal Health (IFAH) is the global representative body of companies engaged in research, development, manufacturing and commercialisation of veterinary medicines, vaccines and other animal health products in both developed and developing countries across the five continents."[1]
It would not be a stretch to describe the research as "industry funded" and there are some interesting studies on the differences between industry and non-industry funded research on, e.g. a whole load of human pharmaceuticals.
But anyway, isn't the concern (like with "chlorine chicken") more about what this might mean for animal welfare, not for human health?
Who would have imagined that Philip would be a rabid supporter of hormone stuffed beef and chlorinated chickens.
I consumer more chlorine in my tap water, or when brushing my teeth, than I ever would in any chickens I may ever eat.
Food standards should be based on what is right for human consumption. There is no scientific reason to ban either and it is an unscientific non-tariff barrier that makes our farmers less efficient.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
I agree with much of that. Indeed, Patrick Holden, Director of the Sustainable Food Trust, says:
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
I'm liking "intensively produced ... diary products" (which I assume is in the source as you've copy-pasted?). Is Filofax still a thing then?
More seriously, with any of this kind of analysis you have to choose what effects you include in your calculation and so it's quite posisble to get different answers without actually fiddling the figures, but still getting the answer you want. Beef rather than intense crop farming in England may also be a very different answer to beef versus rainforest in South America.
Yes, there's good beef and bad beef.
I certainly wouldn't buy Brazilian beef, for example - I don't agree with levelling rainforest for pasture. But, using natural grass uplands in the UK that can't be used for crops is a different story.
Indeed.
I wonder whether the non-tariff barrier unscientific ban on perfectly healthy hormone supplements means that greenhouse emissions are higher as a result? Eat hormone treated beef to save the planet? 🥩
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Tower Hamlets has just passed 35%, so half the national average. Mind you even places like Bromley and Richmond upon Thames, which are the least deprived boroughs, are still only just over 60% for a first dose. London as a whole is not keeping up with the UK vaccination programme.
Two thoughts: - Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this) - More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
Not sure about the figures being quoted (see below)
According to the latest weekly release, Tower Hill is about 7.5% behind the England average
At those rates I think it will be more to do with people having left London than vaccine hesitancy.
Tower Hill is a posh area though, Tower Hamlets is where you might see more vaccine hesitancy.
There are posh bits - but lots and lots of very poor people.
Brent is quite poor, incidentally..
It's when you look at the MSOA level numbers, which are of the order of 10-20K people, that you really see what is going on. The low take up areas are small patches within the larger areas. It's not all of Brent - but Harlesden, Church End etc....
Not sure what your data source is defining as Tower Hill? There are definitely not lots of very poor people actually in Tower Hill at all, but if you go a couple of miles radius around it then there are.
If you mean Tower Hamlets then yes it has lots of very poor people.
For these purposes Tower Hill & Wapping South - E02000890
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
There's not the slightest chance the Japanese would accept that.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
Given that freedom of movement isn't currently a part of the bloc, it doesn't seem likely.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
There's not the slightest chance the Japanese would accept that.
I am not sure it was "the" Pacific Trading bloc so much as a Commonwealth Pacific Trading bloc.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
There's not the slightest chance the Japanese would accept that.
I am not sure it was "the" Pacific Trading bloc so much as a Commonwealth Pacific Trading bloc.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
Given that freedom of movement isn't currently a part of the bloc, it doesn't seem likely.
My mistake, not "the" Pacific trading bloc, but a "Commonwealth" Pacific Trading bloc.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
Given that freedom of movement isn't currently a part of the bloc, it doesn't seem likely.
My mistake, not "the" Pacific trading bloc, but a "Commonwealth" Pacific Trading bloc.
Some have been going on about that sort of thing for years. Just because one person has said they want it doesn't mean it is anywhere close to happening.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
There's not the slightest chance the Japanese would accept that.
I am not sure it was "the" Pacific Trading bloc so much as a Commonwealth Pacific Trading bloc.
Well that bloc doesn't even exist.
This is Jonathan Marland's proposal. Jonathan Marland is a Conservative Peer, acting on behalf of the UK Government. Don't blame me.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
There's not the slightest chance the Japanese would accept that.
I am not sure it was "the" Pacific Trading bloc so much as a Commonwealth Pacific Trading bloc.
Well that bloc doesn't even exist.
This is Jonathan Marland's proposal. Jonathan Marland is a Conservative Peer, acting on behalf of the UK Government. Don't blame me.
This is government policy, or his own opinion? He has no responsibilities in the area of trade policy for the government.
In another instance of BBC corruption, Rashford was excluded from SPotY last year by giving him a special award, in order to appease the government and screw many PBers' bets.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
There's not the slightest chance the Japanese would accept that.
I am not sure it was "the" Pacific Trading bloc so much as a Commonwealth Pacific Trading bloc.
Well that bloc doesn't even exist.
This is Jonathan Marland's proposal. Jonathan Marland is a Conservative Peer, acting on behalf of the UK Government. Don't blame me.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
I agree with much of that. Indeed, Patrick Holden, Director of the Sustainable Food Trust, says:
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
I'm liking "intensively produced ... diary products" (which I assume is in the source as you've copy-pasted?). Is Filofax still a thing then?
More seriously, with any of this kind of analysis you have to choose what effects you include in your calculation and so it's quite posisble to get different answers without actually fiddling the figures, but still getting the answer you want. Beef rather than intense crop farming in England may also be a very different answer to beef versus rainforest in South America.
Yes, there's good beef and bad beef.
I certainly wouldn't buy Brazilian beef, for example - I don't agree with levelling rainforest for pasture. But, using natural grass uplands in the UK that can't be used for crops is a different story.
You might do though. If you go to a restaurant, a lot of time you have no idea where the meat has come from. It would be good to have more transparency so that consumers can exercise an informed choice — a key tenant of capitalism.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
Given that freedom of movement isn't currently a part of the bloc, it doesn't seem likely.
My mistake, not "the" Pacific trading bloc, but a "Commonwealth" Pacific Trading bloc.
Some have been going on about that sort of thing for years. Just because one person has said they want it doesn't mean it is anywhere close to happening.
Marland seemed to have been involved in the current Australia negotiations and sees the Commonwealth Pan Pacific as an extension, including freedom of movement. He stated this should happen because we share, language, culture and legal process.
The energy used per kg of meat to transport the food across the world is tiny compared to the energy you will use getting it from the supermarket to your house.
If that's the best argument you can come up with it's easily debunked.
A better question would be does the food meet the high UK standards given that a lot of current Australian exports are to countries with far lower standards.
Isn't the point that we should be eating a lot less red meat period and that importing cheaper red meat from Australia is therefore a step in the wrong direction?
As someone who rather likes red meat, lamb especially, this is not an observation that I find instinctively attractive but the evidence that red meat production is bad for global warming seems pretty compelling.
Lamb is better than beef for the environment. Much less methane, much less supplementary feed, less water and well suited to uplands where little else thrives.
Veal too. Most male calves are shot at birth in the UK, and the carcases wasted as a by product of the dairy industry. Outdoor natural British veal is excellent, just hard to find.
I agree with much of that. Indeed, Patrick Holden, Director of the Sustainable Food Trust, says:
"In order to support the transition to regenerative farming systems, which rebuild the fertility that has been lost during the intensive farming chapter, we actually need to eat more grass-fed meat, mainly beef and lamb.
“In the UK, two-thirds of the farmed area is currently pasture (grass and clover). These grasslands play a vital role in maintaining the soil carbon bank, as well as producing food we can eat, through the unique ability of ruminants to digest cellulose. Not only does this maintain a healthy soil, but the land works as a carbon sink – absorbing carbon dioxide. So, if you’re eating grass-fed beef, lamb and dairy, you can do so with a clear conscience, knowing you are part of the solution, not the problem.
“University of Oxford Professor Myles Allen has recalculated the amount of methane emissions from ruminants: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-news-climate-pollutants-gwp/ As a result, he’s calling into question all the conclusions of the recent reports on climate change and agriculture. The inference from this new research is that we don’t have to stop eating grass-fed cattle or sheep.
“Instead of demonising livestock in general and cattle and sheep in particular, we need to differentiate between the animals that are part of the problem, namely intensively produced poultry, pork and diary products, and those that are part of the solution, namely grass-fed ruminants. At the root of the climate change problem is our fossil fuel consumption, this is where we need to take the most urgent action”.
I'm liking "intensively produced ... diary products" (which I assume is in the source as you've copy-pasted?). Is Filofax still a thing then?
More seriously, with any of this kind of analysis you have to choose what effects you include in your calculation and so it's quite posisble to get different answers without actually fiddling the figures, but still getting the answer you want. Beef rather than intense crop farming in England may also be a very different answer to beef versus rainforest in South America.
Yes, there's good beef and bad beef.
I certainly wouldn't buy Brazilian beef, for example - I don't agree with levelling rainforest for pasture. But, using natural grass uplands in the UK that can't be used for crops is a different story.
You might do though. If you go to a restaurant, a lot of time you have no idea where the meat has come from. It would be good to have more transparency so that consumers can exercise an informed choice — a key tenant of capitalism.
Just had a vision of a future Britain where everything is marked with country of origin. Using flags.
I don't understand why he is so insecure about it.
He knows how bad it really is.
Doesn't want that to be his legacy.
Except, if that were the case and he was being rational, the thing to do would be a performative BEANO, followed by a rapid change of subject. Then let it quietly unwind over a decade or two under his successors.
By nailing the country to a hard Brexit, he ensures that this will be his legacy. Even though, as Frostie's remarks this week show, things aren't exactly going to plan.
Maybe, like a gambler conscious of having lost a bit, the plan is to double down to make it up. Not a strategy that always works.
As for the deal, no harm in having one, but the angel and the devil will be in the details. Have food and environmental standards been protected, as we were promised? What has the UK got in exchange? Have the UK negotiators leveraged the value of access to the UK market, or have signed what was put in front of us? Does going slower as part of a bigger block get you a more advantageous deal in the end?
Some of these questions might eventually be answered.
Lord Jonathan Marland was on Today earlier, very, very keen on joining the Pacific Trading bloc now we have left the EU trading bloc. His proposals would include a freedom of movement element within the Pacific bloc...wtf?
Given that freedom of movement isn't currently a part of the bloc, it doesn't seem likely.
My mistake, not "the" Pacific trading bloc, but a "Commonwealth" Pacific Trading bloc.
Some have been going on about that sort of thing for years. Just because one person has said they want it doesn't mean it is anywhere close to happening.
Marland seemed to have been involved in the current Australia negotiations and sees the Commonwealth Pan Pacific as an extension, including freedom of movement. He stated this should happen because we share, language, culture and legal process.
But not as a member of the government. And like I said, several people hold this view. Just because one of those people has said it publicly doesn't mean it is anywhere close to fruition.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
In another instance of BBC corruption, Rashford was excluded from SPotY last year by giving him a special award, in order to appease the government and screw many PBers' bets.
Presumably Bill and Melinda Gates will still be topping the international section? Really interesting divorce agreement btw, Melinda got the house but Bill got the windows.
In another instance of BBC corruption, Rashford was excluded from SPotY last year by giving him a special award, in order to appease the government and screw many PBers' bets.
Presumably Bill and Melinda Gates will still be topping the international section? Really interesting divorce agreement btw, Melinda got the house but Bill got the windows.
In another instance of BBC corruption, Rashford was excluded from SPotY last year by giving him a special award, in order to appease the government and screw many PBers' bets.
Presumably Bill and Melinda Gates will still be topping the international section? Really interesting divorce agreement btw, Melinda got the house but Bill got the windows.
Shared custody of the office?
Yes, but see the next time he presses control alt delete....
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
Everyone knows that the "countryside" is to stop plebs building houses, not for things like "farming". Don't be ridiculous.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
Just thinking that will polarise UK politics even more.
The Truss's leadership prospects are surely in tatters. The Tories would never risk her - an absolutely vilified character within Britain's rural communities. Truss the Farmer's Cuss she'll be known as.
Dunno about that. The Tory members in the SE couldn’t give a damn about the farmers.
Everyone knows that the "countryside" is to stop plebs building houses, not for things like "farming". Don't be ridiculous.
I'm beginning to think some people don't know what "food security" means.
So. Looks like brexit means brexit means a race to the bottom in standards and the screwing over of our own producers.
The Waitrose brexiteers got played.
Gove is an idiot.
Gove is now regarded as a filthy Remainer: 'If you're prepared to destroy British farming in return for imported frozen emu burgers you're not one of us.'
So. Looks like brexit means brexit means a race to the bottom in standards and the screwing over of our own producers.
The Waitrose brexiteers got played.
Gove is an idiot.
Gove is now regarded as a filthy Remainer: 'If you're prepared to destroy British farming in return for imported frozen emu burgers you're not one of us.'
Is that a joke or is it reality? I can't work it out any more ...
Comments
Anyway, today it is raining. But I come from hardy stock. And I have an anorak with a hood - a very stylish purple one, as it happens. And boots.
Having put up some trellis on the wall outside a bedroom window, I promised myself last night that I would go to the garden centre to choose some climbers. I can't spend all day hanging round with weirdos on the internet (joke: I love you all, really).
The choice is Ambleside or Beetham.
Coffee first.
https://www.scribd.com/document/508627151/Hc-12-the-Conduct-of-Mr-Mike-Hill#download
This is the Guido upload; I do not know where the original lives.
38%....that can't be right, surely?
These going against the Trust can go on for years, and cost millions. Hence there tends to a slap on the wrist, no real resolution and often a toxic atmosphere in the department for years, before one party leaves, often "due to ill health" , and frequently the bullied or whistle-blower.
I think it is the same in police and other large organisations, public and private. We need a better, less confrontational way of resolution.
The results aren't what I would have expected - the southern states are the best for teachers.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-problems-with-labour-mythology/
Perhaps it is, but it begs questions about what it has to offer if it isn't a rehash of the 1980s myths. Though the 1980s sloganising tended to run on the lines of no return to the 1930s.
If they make this a red line, we can too, in which case no deal is signed. In which case we move on. If on the other hand they don't, as they haven't in the past and in line with their own domestic laws, then great we can get a deal.
Arguing with right-wing people on the Internet is one of the less productive uses of one's time.
I would expect low welfare systems to be excluded from any agreement.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-57181038
Maybe its all those hormones in their meat messing with their brains.....
https://twitter.com/mattcarr55/status/1395655559387430915?s=21
It takes two to tango.
More seriously, with any of this kind of analysis you have to choose what effects you include in your calculation and so it's quite posisble to get different answers without actually fiddling the figures, but still getting the answer you want. Beef rather than intense crop farming in England may also be a very different answer to beef versus rainforest in South America.
An investigation - a good one - should find out what went wrong. Whether or not someone gets disciplined or sacked should be a secondary consideration. And a good investigation should - if there are reasons for sacking someone, be good enough to provide that evidence. Obviously that depends in part in internal policies and evidence of medical malpractice is very different to the sort of stuff I was dealing with so I defer to you on that.
Some of the problems you describe can arise because there is a lack of focus on what the investigation is for. And poor management in dealing with the issues arising as a result of an investigation happening. That too is something which investigators need to help manage.
I believe that an investigation should be there primarily to understand what happened, put matters right and learn lessons to stop the same thing happening again. Discipline is an important part of that. But an investigation should not be primarily an employment issue.
In all the ones I did which led to disciplinaries or sackings, not one was challenged or overturned on appeal. Nor was an employment case ever lost.
But the NHS has I think even more complexity and I suspect that sometimes doctors and nurses are scapegoated for failings of management.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
Most recent
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/05/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-20-May-2021.xlsx
EDIT - according to the latest data, Richmond seems to be doing about the national average in terms of percentages vaccinated per age group.
I notice that Matthew Scott evaded my first question and has so far failed to answer my second, while putting the boot into Matthew Parris, quite eloquently, but rather missing the point.
Report:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4480714/Cancer-sufferer-standing-against-Jeremy-Corbyn.html
Among the most crucial reforms, she says, is the repeal of a 1948 law which means, bizarrely, that when patients sue the NHS, their damages are calculated on the basis they will pay for private healthcare for the rest of their lives – even though many will continue to be treated in the public sector, at public cost.
‘I saw this time and again,’ Susanne says. ‘Someone would get a huge settlement, but not fork out a penny on care. Meanwhile big awards, running into millions, are assessed on the basis that the beneficiary will live for several decades. But if they die a few years later, nothing goes back to the NHS. They can leave it to their relatives or a dogs’ home. This has to change.’
However, the biggest change she wants is more fundamental: an end to the legal lottery that means two patients with identical needs will be treated differently – one receiving millions, and the other nothing. ‘Take, for example, a cerebral palsy patient. The case will probably come down to something in the medical notes that a lawyer can argue means the midwife was absent for 19 minutes. These claims aren’t based on need, but on a narrow, legal definition of fault.
‘So they drag on for years. And it means a doctor or a hospital can never say sorry, which is all many patients want – because to do so will mean admitting liability.’
The last time the Government appointed a commission to examine this situation in 1978, it recommended a ‘no fault’ system be investigated
We are born with our political opinions rather than choosing them, and any attempt* at overriding that is doomed to fail, with horrible consequences for the individual affected.
*Except for naturally becoming more conservative as we age, obviously.
Bassetlaw is at 50%. For second doses...
There is an interesting article to write on miss-use of such cultural privileges. In the US, for example, there is a nice little corrupt scam involving preference for companies "owned" by minorities, veterans etc. Work is passed through nominal shell companies.... Strangely this ends up with the minority in question getting very little benefit...
Amazing how often those whistleblowing about standards of care mysteriously become subject to investigations shortly after they complained.
Given that nobody (rich and white) is ever held accountable for anything in this country, he probably could afford to ease back. Won't though.
Hmmmmm
according to the latest release
Age National Tower Hill
Under 40 24.23% 16.28%
40-44 64.23% 54.40%
45-49 75.32% 65.87%
50-54 83.70% 77.52%
55-59 86.47% 80.24%
60-64 88.78% 81.38%
65-69 91.60% 83.90%
70-74 94.09% 87.40%
75-79 95.13% 87.06%
80+ 94.87% 87.70%
Tower Hill is behind, significantly. But not by that much.
- Is London residentially younger than elsewhere (as an explanation, I expect there are breakdowns by age, which may answer this)
- More likely: this is all based on population estimates. Are there many more 'Londoners' no longer in London so not getting jabbed there? If elsewhere in UK, they might still be included (if residence area is used for assignment, rather than jab location and residence is still given as London despite temporarily being elsewhere). But there may be many immigrants, particlarly EU (as closer) who have left as jobs disappeared or were furloughed but are still counted in the denominator.
We might not have a really good handle on % vaccinated until the new census numbers come out.
At a guess I would say 10-20% of the London NHS roll is not actually living in London in 2021.
Unfortunately, we won't need the census numbers - we'll see it in hospital admissions way before that.
According to the latest weekly release, Tower Hill is about 7.5% behind the England average
Under 40 -7.96%
40-44 -9.83%
45-49 -9.45%
50-54 -6.18%
55-59 -6.23%
60-64 -7.40%
65-69 -7.69%
70-74 -6.70%
75-79 -8.07%
80+ -7.17%
Tower Hill is a posh area though, Tower Hamlets is where you might see more vaccine hesitancy.
Brent is quite poor, incidentally..
It's when you look at the MSOA level numbers, which are of the order of 10-20K people, that you really see what is going on. The low take up areas are small patches within the larger areas. It's not all of Brent - but Harlesden, Church End etc....
I certainly wouldn't buy Brazilian beef, for example - I don't agree with levelling rainforest for pasture. But, using natural grass uplands in the UK that can't be used for crops is a different story.
In essence his answer is no different to Parris's. But he ignores the problem of the failure to enforce those laws and he doesn't say why - or in what circumstances - he would not evict or what this means for those affected. And it is this which goes to the heart of the problem: the unequal and unfair application of the law so that some crimes/breaches are overlooked because of some irrelevant consideration.
So his criticism of Parris is an eloquent rant I am afraid which does not deal with the issues which Parris raises.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1395680111463223296?s=20
I will listen to arguments of discrimination in education and employment that drives that behaviour in desperation, and how we can help. However, I won't accept that's a "cultural" thing we must tolerate.
Lue Elizondo on Fox News
He decided to put a roof on an old stone building in the corner of a field, as a store. Figured he could make it really secure. Within the day, the planning inspectors (with police escort!) were out, checking that he wasn't building a house.
He suggested that next time he sees people sneaking onto his land, he report them for trespass with criminal intent to create a habitable property.
If you mean Tower Hamlets then yes it has lots of very poor people.
Food standards should be based on what is right for human consumption. There is no scientific reason to ban either and it is an unscientific non-tariff barrier that makes our farmers less efficient.
I wonder whether the non-tariff barrier unscientific ban on perfectly healthy hormone supplements means that greenhouse emissions are higher as a result? Eat hormone treated beef to save the planet? 🥩
https://mapit.mysociety.org/area/34769.html
Email that to three years ago when we might have cared.
https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1395460444815515650?s=20
Marcus Rashford tops The Sunday Times Giving List 2021
The footballer’s food poverty campaign puts him at the top of our annual list of philanthropy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/marcus-rashford-sunday-times-giving-list-2021-l9td90n0l (£££)
In another instance of BBC corruption, Rashford was excluded from SPotY last year by giving him a special award, in order to appease the government and screw many PBers' bets.
A liberal democracy built by importing convicts and letting them go wild? With mammals that lay eggs? Black swans?
FFS
ETA the UKDefJournal's joke, that is.
Dura Ace would be unable to function.
Also, I suppose the one on the right is one of the British ones for which we could afford the carrier, but not the aircraft?
The Waitrose brexiteers got played.
Gove is an idiot.
An interesting video you should probably see in response to one of Elizondo's famous videos in the past: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLyEO0jNt6M