"Fact check: His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
Shame that Neil Oliver has been poached by Gammon Broadcasting, that would be an exciting appointment.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Surely you drink Scotch, rather than read it?
But it would be so disrespectful not to use the proper terminology.
"Fact check: His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
Shame that Neil Oliver has been poached by Gammon Broadcasting, that would be an exciting appointment.
Judging by the substantial number of female journalists who have joined GBnews you are going to need to apologise for suggesting they are gammon
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Well it would be difficult to know unless all previous quotes have not been tampered with. So do tell us.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
What public health risk? Groups 1-4 are all fully vaccinated and we're making mega progress on groups 5-9 with around 50% of them fully vaccinated. Who exactly is being put at risk at the moment, what risk is there for hospitals to be overloaded with patients when those with the highest risk of hospitalisation are fully vaccinated?
It's a load of authoritarian rubbish from Gestapo Gove who wants to control everyone's lives forever.
"Fact check: His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
"Fact check: His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
I mean, whilst I’m happy to claim a much reduced risk to public health for the young, “zero risk” is very much overegging it. Between one in six and one in five of those in ICU were outside of the vulnerable Groups 1-9 (obviously the percentage has increased as the more vulnerable have been vaxxed).
The one in seven children who experience covid symptoms for over 5 weeks if infected do concern me. I’ve had splitting headaches that last for days; having one that continues relentlessly for over a month with a possibility of just continuing on and on - that’s not good. Myalgia, fatigue, breathlessness - all not good.
Which is why I feel a touch guilty that when my loved ones (all adults) are vaxed, the risk goes down hugely for them but not for all.
However, the draw of true herd immunity is in front of us, and will be very welcome indeed.
On lockdown, the only question the government should be asking itself is can we bring the June 21st freedom from restrictions forward?
I’m including masks. I won’t be wearing one after June 21.
I think that June 21st is just the end date for various activities being restricted. Social Distancing and Masks hasn't really featured in what the government plan.
Certainly in the hospitals we have not been told to end these, at least not yet. Indeed fresh PPE guidance was issued nationally just last week.
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
Well that's pretty bizarre. How convenient for him that a procedural oversight regarding who the IEP reports to means he cannot face a recall.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
I think you're wrong on this one, Nick. When there are high numbers of susceptible population and high prevalence, then it makes sense for the government to have mandatory rules. When there are low numbers and low prevalence, it makes sense to have no rules. When you are in transition states, you can tilt the outcome to the desired one through partial compliance with guidance.
If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
I think people can end up in intensive care from any number of things. People can end up in intensive care from alcohol poisoning by drinking too much, so should we make alcohol sales illegal?
If there's a credible risk for an individual then let the individuals weigh up their own risk profiles and make a choice.
It isn't the government's responsibility to stop anyone from ever ending up in intensive care, its responsibility is to ensure that intensive care is available if it is needed.
Deepti Gurdasani @dgurdasani1 · 7h I'm sure there's going to be the usual 'but vaccines now, so this is different' - Yes, vaccines will help, but SAGE modelling shows this is where we're headed even with current levels of vaccination with a more transmissible variant with some escape - if we continue as we are.
It must be said that she is not an expert, looking at her bio and publications. No more an expert than me, in fact (we appear to be a similar distance from being experts on infectious disease - and I'm no expert!)
Anyone who says 'headed' instead of heading has no grip of basic grammar, so not sure why they should be trusted on coronavirus.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
On lockdown, the only question the government should be asking itself is can we bring the June 21st freedom from restrictions forward?
I’m including masks. I won’t be wearing one after June 21.
I think that June 21st is just the end date for various activities being restricted. Social Distancing and Masks hasn't really featured in what the government plan.
Certainly in the hospitals we have not been told to end these, at least not yet. Indeed fresh PPE guidance was issued nationally just last week.
Yes I realise this.
Mine is a personal choice to avoid if at all possible any unnecessary restrictions on my person.
On the topic of seasonality in Covid-19: pretty comprehensive, admirably easy to read US paper on this, which comes up with fairly nuanced conclusions. Yes an apparent seasonal signature, stronger in high latitude countries, but not enough on its own to overwhelm other epidemiological factors especially early in the pandemic.
It seems average temperatures between 5 and 11C are the worst statistically for spread, though the error bars are large. This month has averaged 9.7C so far in Central England.
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
I think you're wrong on this one, Nick. When there are high numbers of susceptible population and high prevalence, then it makes sense for the government to have mandatory rules. When there are low numbers and low prevalence, it makes sense to have no rules. When you are in transition states, you can tilt the outcome to the desired one through partial compliance with guidance.
If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
In a low prevalence situation then track and trace is probably the way to go, though our version seems pretty useless despite the surveillance state.
Of course one person's freedom may impinge on another's personal space. I think a lot of people are wary of crowded places, and will be for some time.
Those taking off their masks and crowding in need to display some manners to the rest.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
I think you're wrong on this one, Nick. When there are high numbers of susceptible population and high prevalence, then it makes sense for the government to have mandatory rules. When there are low numbers and low prevalence, it makes sense to have no rules. When you are in transition states, you can tilt the outcome to the desired one through partial compliance with guidance.
If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
In a low prevalence situation then track and trace is probably the way to go, though our version seems pretty useless despite the surveillance state.
Of course one person's freedom may impinge on another's personal space. I think a lot of people are wary of crowded places, and will be for some time.
Those taking off their masks and crowding in need to display some manners to the rest.
Personally, I don’t think so.
Rather, I feel I have a responsibility to remain unmasked (after June 21) in order to encourage others. We are social animals and most tend to “go with the flow”.
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
What a weird technicality.
The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
Thanks for that DoubleCarpet, I love the way some people produce things like this
Do you know if there is any data available on how people who voted one way in the first round voted in the second? i.e how many UKIP voters in round 1 voted green in round 2 and so on?
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
What a weird technicality.
The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
Indeed. It is to be hoped that MPs will act on a crossparty basis to redress this. Many Tories are appalled at his conduct.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
What a weird technicality.
The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
"But because Roberts appealed a finding against him by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, causing his case to be referred to the IEP, the formal process under the Recall of MPs Act of 2015 will not be triggered."
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
That look right to me, but more than that almost all of those deaths where in people with known pre existing conditions that made them more vulnerable, and these people have also been offered the vaccine, several months ago.
All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.
I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.
Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box. Voter: What's your mandate? Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet. Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power? Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created] Voter: Shocking Me: Time for a change Voter - yes definitely.
Voter #2 [on the doorstep] Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change Voter: yes definitely
Voter #3 [same thing]
Voter #4 Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change Voter: Don't give me that rubbish. Me: Are you going to vote? Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question. Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said. Voter: Impertinent. I avoided giving the V sign.
Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.
66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.
Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.
Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?
Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.
If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
Why should we accept we have no privacy?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
What a weird technicality.
The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
So now we need MPs to show some integrity and close that loophole...
Why is Dom reframing the notion of "herd immunity"? A mass vaccination campaign is precisely about creating herd immunity. The idea is to achieve so much coverage as to leave the virus no other option but to die out or mutate and become harmless. That is how smallpox died out, for example.
There is presumably a model that connects % vaccine coverage with R, or more specifically with what the value of R would be if there were no vaccination.
What % vaccine coverage is thought to be required in order to achieve herd immunity against SARSCoV2? Does someone here know? Presumably the figure varies on various assumptions regarding variants, but still, can somebody post some ballpark figures. 60%? 90%? 95%?
The formula is 1-1/R0, where R naught is the R for a naive and unprotected population (i.e. where all members of the population are susceptible to infection)
So if R0= 5, then herd immunity is 80% of the total population (not adult). If it is 3.6, as in Kent variant, then 72-73%
If we get 95% of all adults (79% of the population) vaccinated with two shots providing 90% protection, that gets us to 67.5% of the total population protected. With about ⅓ of the 16.8 million unvaccinated kids and adults probably having naturally acquired immunity through exposure, that would almost certainly IMO take us to herd immunity with the current variants.
Also, remember that potential case growth slows dramatically as you approach herd immunity. So even at the point when (say) only 60% of the population is vaccinated, there are far fewer hosts for the virus to infect.
"FIA to look at IndyCar rule that would have denied Leclerc pole
The FIA will look at IndyCar's rule deleting times for drivers who cause red flags in qualifying and deem its suitability for Formula 1 after Charles Leclerc's Monaco crash."
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
If there is 'long-covid' (I think so) then it'd be very much about that rather than deaths. If some big number of youngsters have had covid and that has in some way hurt them then that's a really big thing,
However... 'Long common cold', 'Long flu' .. Money needs to flow to the sector, but they really need to up their game.
"Fact check: His final term had been due to end in 2020, but a third exceptional term of office was agreed to provide stability to the organisation during the coronavirus crisis. In May 2021, the Trust announced that he would step down from his position in October this year."
That's the face-saving statement they've put out, yes. And note it's a slightly extended second term (they run for three years) not a third.
The fact is that Parker was facing a vote of no confidence at the next AGM in October. That's not something anyone would have bothered tabling resolutions for and campaigning for if he was going anyway.
All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.
I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.
Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box. Voter: What's your mandate? Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet. Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power? Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created] Voter: Shocking Me: Time for a change Voter - yes definitely.
Voter #2 [on the doorstep] Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change Voter: yes definitely
Voter #3 [same thing]
Voter #4 Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change Voter: Don't give me that rubbish. Me: Are you going to vote? Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question. Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said. Voter: Impertinent. I avoided giving the V sign.
Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.
66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.
Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.
Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?
Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.
If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
Why should we accept we have no privacy?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
Why should I embrace it?
I am frightened by it - and I want better safeguards.
Seems like the recall criteria include a 2 week suspension from Parliament as an option for starting a petition.
Rob Roberts is facing a 6 week suspension, so should definitely count on that.
So a recall petition seems plausible? A by-election in mid-terms in Delyn really ought to be a Labour Gain so could be an interesting by-election if it happens?
Guessing the Tories should not be running Rob Roberts again if it does after these allegations. 😕
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.' '
What a weird technicality.
The report I read stated that it went to the Independent Expert Panel after he challenged a report from the Committee on Standards - so it looks like there is a dodge available for every MP, if they are shameless enough to avail of it.
"But because Roberts appealed a finding against him by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, causing his case to be referred to the IEP, the formal process under the Recall of MPs Act of 2015 will not be triggered."
If the Standards Committee reported, but then it went to IEP, and then there was a suspension then that should really be a suspension after a Standards Committee report. Just because there was an IEP report inbetween doesn't stop the suspension from being after the finding by the Standards Commissioner.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
That look right to me, but more than that almost all of those deaths where in people with known pre existing conditions that made them more vulnerable, and these people have also been offered the vaccine, several months ago.
Sorry, slight error. I compared English deaths with UK population data. But you get my drift
All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.
I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.
Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box. Voter: What's your mandate? Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet. Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power? Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created] Voter: Shocking Me: Time for a change Voter - yes definitely.
Voter #2 [on the doorstep] Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change Voter: yes definitely
Voter #3 [same thing]
Voter #4 Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change Voter: Don't give me that rubbish. Me: Are you going to vote? Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question. Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said. Voter: Impertinent. I avoided giving the V sign.
Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.
66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.
Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.
Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?
Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.
If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
Why should we accept we have no privacy?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
Why should I embrace it?
I am frightened by it - and I want better safeguards.
Technology is here to serve us, not the other way around.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
All this chaos just makes Amersham and Chesham more interesting. Postal hit the mat this week which just makes Cummings appearance before the Select Committee more interesting.
I spent three hours delivering leaflets in a wealthy part of Chalfont last weekend. I met four voters.
Voter #1 Came to the door the instant I'd thrust the leaflet through his letter box. Voter: What's your mandate? Me: [Thinking should I go on greenery or internationalism then inspired] It's in the leaflet. Voter: The potholes here are shocking and we pay too much. How long have this lot been in power? Me: At least 20 years? [Actually it is since 1974 when the constituency was created] Voter: Shocking Me: Time for a change Voter - yes definitely.
Voter #2 [on the doorstep] Me: [Handing over the leaflet] We think it's time for a change Voter: yes definitely
Voter #3 [same thing]
Voter #4 Me: [Handing over the leaflet] Time for a change Voter: Don't give me that rubbish. Me: Are you going to vote? Voter: Of course I am. We are really privileged in this country. I'm 100% certain to vote. What a stupid question. Me: Only 40% vote in by elections. If you said you weren't going to vote, I've have said to you what you just said. Voter: Impertinent. I avoided giving the V sign.
Conclusion: Some wealthy electors think it's time for a change and some are edgy.
By coincidence I just got copy of the marked register for my town council election. Looking up the various people who have since assured that they voted for me is always good for a bit of wry amusement.
66% of postal votes came back, with an overall turnout of 36%, so that about 27% of the total votes counted came in by post.
Interestingly, despite all the COVID fuss, very few late or single-election PV applications. Presumably people worried about the virus just didn’t bother voting.
I am surprised you are given that, it is after all meant to be a secret ballot and an abstention is also a vote. It is a practise that should stop and those records kept confidential.
It has always been done and is a useful tool to the parties. It also helps that you don't waste your time and the electors time who never voter. Whether you vote or not is not considered secret. I don't agree that abstention is a vote. I would accept that a spoilt paper is a vote. A distinction between a protest and can't be arsed.
A decision to abstain is very much a vote and quite different to can't be arsed. Parties absolutlely should not have access to that information. We always complain about marginal constituencies having a malign influence on elections and this just basically creates marginal voters within a constituency ie those that voted last time.
Parties should make an effort to sway all the voters not just the ones that they think might cast a vote. The fraud investigation can as easily be done by the electoral commission. Also I would have thought against data protection laws as no one has ever informed me when I do turn up to vote that the fact I voted may be sold off to political parties. This law should be changed soonest.
The easiest way to screen for fraud is to filter your canvass data for all those put down as ‘not voting’ and cross-check with the marked register. Which takes five minutes using the election software most parties have. There is no way the EC could do this.
Probably a much better way of picking up impersonation than photo ID.
Strange then as I don't know anyone that has ever had a visit after an election from a canvasser after telling them they won't vote......of course you will be able to point out all the electoral fraud this has caught...links to stories.....lib dems uncover electoral fraud stories etc? No?
Give over this is a tool for parties to only cover those they think will vote and probably does more harm than good to turnout. If they had no insight into who voted last time and had to visit all voters who knows just maybe some of the cant be arsed might get motivated.
If you don't live in a hyper marginal, then why would there be any incentive for the parties to commit electoral fraud?
I am not the one banging on about electoral fraud here its ianb2 claiming its why they need to see lists of who voted. My argument was that they only want them as its a useful targetting tool for canvassers and that they shouldn't be allowed them.
In the words of Scott McNealy: you have no privacy, get over it.
If this information wasn't available from the electoral roll, Google and Apple would sell it to you (as they know where you are at any time). And yes, I know you don't have a smartphone, and you've surgically disconnected any smart features from your car. But even the most privacy obsessed person is going to leave a digital trail. And yes, that means someone can work out who voted and who didn't.
Why should we accept we have no privacy?
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
Even the Zuck puts tape over his laptop camera...
I'm not paranoid (I have a gmail address) but refuse to use Facebook and block absolutely everything that can be blocked, just for annoyance value if nothing else.
A lot of Chinese electronic tat (ip webcams, phones etc) does seem to enjoy sending messages back to the mother country, so if you care about that it is worth stopping.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
I had a text earlier from Bradford NHS. An earlier slot for my second jab? No. Just to advise me of a change of venue as my original vaccination centre is no longer supplying AZ.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.
I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).
I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.
I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).
I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.
I don't think it's a nanny state, more a culture of people in the public sector wanting to justify their existence.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
He'll pick a different name. Isn't there a rumour that Charles is going to call himself George VII?
If I'm right then, of the previously used names, only George, Charles and John avoid the numbering problem - and neither the Scottish nor the English John are particularly happy precedents, of course. I do indeed recall the rumour about Charles becoming George VII, but perhaps he'll choose to own Charles III (and then William may end up as George VII instead?)
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Well said. The modern spins on the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' line is deeply worrying.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
That won't avert a fresh wave of outraged screaming when William ascends the throne (unless, of course, the Union is killed off beforehand. Or he picks a different name to get around the problem.)
It will be outrage from hardline nationalists, most Scots will not be bothered and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy in Scotland even if it went independent
Sturgeon is lying, of course. It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
Not necessarily, Australia, New Zealand and Canada still have the Queen as Head of State even as independent nations as did Ireland have the British monarch as Head of State for 27 years after independence
Yes, but Nicola comes across as a private republican, and in the event of Scottish independence republicanism would be on the agenda.
They would have to get independence first and even if they did it would not be a priority for a number of years (plus of course the royal family are part Scottish themselves anyway given Mary Queen of Scots is an ancestor of the Queen)
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
Well, if he keeps the name then he'd be William V of the whole show, of course. But only the fourth Scottish William. They had one before 1603, we had two.
Advice not to do stuff is very different from prohibition. I can't imagine why the government didn't make it clear that they'd be issuing local advice though.
@MikeSmithson You're giving yourself plenty of room on that 18% lead! Just for the hell of it though I'll agree a tenner. All winning proceeds to PB. Agreeable?
Yes, we're almost getting into the level of tediousbackground nagging - don't smoke, don't drive, don't go to Bolton.
Arguably the state shouldn't be doing any of this. Either make an activity illegal or butt out.
Ugh no thanks! That's worse as it will encourage them to actually make stuff illegal, rather than giving people information and letting them choose.
Let the state nag in the background, so long as we can tell the state to go f*** itself and ignore it.
That's fine for something mainly affecting yourself. Should you smoke pot? I'd be fine with the Government said "Probably not, but it's your body, so..." But if they believe - as they appear to - that visiting Bolton is a significant risk to public health, then they should make it illegal to visit Bolton without a short list of specfified emergencies. If they don't believe it's a significant risk, then of course they shouldn;t. But having X decide "Better not" and Y decide "I'll go anyway" is a rubbish policy, since Y will on this theory spread the disease.
Philip is arguing that the risk is now minimal. That's a different point from saying that if the Government thinks it's serious they should just issue some advice and hope for the best.
Sorry but there's no credible risk to public health now that the vulnerable have been vaccinated.
Absolutely advice and hope for the best is the right policy now.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that those outside of Groups 1-9 have no credible risk of ending up in intensive care?
So, if I am reading that correctly, since the start of the pandemic 15 months ago, there have been a total of 231 COVID-linked deaths in England across all the cohorts which are not yet eligible to book a vaccine. Is that correct? 231 out of 24,280,000.
And about 50,000 hospitalisations. The big takeaway is that the young, if hospitalised, have a far far greater chance of surviving.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.
I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).
I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.
There are many such indexes, including one helpfully called the Nanny state index: thought it only cover Europe:
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
William IV since that's the higher ordinal number surely? There haven't been differential ordinal numbers since monarchs became monarchs of the United Kingdom, not England and Scotland separately.
If there were to be another King James then unless there's any constitutional changes they would be James VIII for the whole United Kingdom, not James III in England.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
William IV surely.
Everyone forgets William the Lion, but he was a very interesting man if not perhaps the most successful of monarchs.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
Robert's business depends on him knowing if you're a crap driver, which some people might find embarrassing.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
No, that was before the Acts of Union 1707. He was James VII of Scotland.
Scotland doesn't have a monarch anymore, nor does England, the United Kingdom does. Hence no more differentiated ordinal numbers.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
William IV surely.
Everyone forgets William the Lion, but he was a very interesting man if not perhaps the most successful of monarchs.
I think the U.K. is already a nanny state with an unhealthy interest in what I do and how I spend my time.
I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).
I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.
There are many such indexes, including one helpfully called the Nanny state index: thought it only cover Europe:
It shows U.K. mid-table, with Germany freest. Interestingly, I think Germany has a much better approach to privacy than the U.K., too (despite it causing issues during coronavirus).
But this table is only about food, alcoholic and tobacco.
For me nanny statism encompasses drug regulation, driving rules, planning, cctv, privacy legislation, “hate” speech, burqa-bans etc etc.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
No, that was before the Act of Union, so he was James II & VII (or VII & II!) The first theoretical numbering dispute arose with William IV in 1830, as we had an Anne and four Georges prior to that. Although I don't know how much of a bone of contention this would've been at the time, if a formal rule was established, or the precedence of the English system was simply assumed.
Now there's an established convention that the higher number is used, but I'd be surprised if that were ever tested in practice. As long as both the Union and the Monarchy survive, they'll probably all pick names that don't cause this headache. If and when either falls then the problem becomes moot, of course.
Ministers were forced to climb down on travel restrictions to English Covid hotspots after a day of mounting confusion and anger left millions of people wondering if they needed to cancel bank holiday plans.
Contentious advice will be removed from the government website, a spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday evening. It had advised against all but essential travel to and from eight areas of England where the Covid variant identified in India has been spreading. Instead, people will be advised to “minimise travel”.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
Is that true?
I thought they had EIIR but were vandalised so frequently they switched it to something else to avoid controversy?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Wouldn't he be William III of Scotland?
William IV surely.
Everyone forgets William the Lion, but he was a very interesting man if not perhaps the most successful of monarchs.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
James was of course King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom, but I believe the tradition of taking the higher regnal number comes from the reign of Edward VII, which was the first time it would otherwise have caused significant confusion - not least because of Edward Balliol.
Worth noting as well that William would be William VII of Normandy.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
No, that was before the Act of Union, so he was James II & VII (or VII & II!) The first theoretical numbering dispute arose with William IV in 1830, as we had an Anne and four Georges prior to that. Although I don't know how much of a bone of contention this would've been at the time, if a formal rule was established, or the precedence of the English system was simply assumed.
Now there's an established convention that the higher number is used, but I'd be surprised if that were ever tested in practice. As long as both the Union and the Monarchy survive, they'll probably all pick names that don't cause this headache. If and when either falls then the problem becomes moot, of course.
Wikipedia is interesting on this regnal number issue - it's been helped seemingly by the issue not coming up for a lot of the time since 1707, as most of the monarchs had a name not used previously in either England or Scotland
To rationalise this usage, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used.[6] So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Alexander would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Alexander to reign in England. This had been the case de facto since the Acts of Union 1707; eight of the twelve monarchs since the Act had names never previously used in England or Scotland (Anne, six Georges, and Victoria), sidestepping the issue, and the English numbers for the remaining four monarchs' names (William, two Edwards, and Elizabeth) have consistently been higher and were used
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
Correction (it was a long time since I collected pillar boxes): on checking, the EIIR boxes weren't used in Scotland, just a plain crown, after their initial reception proved unsatisfactory to all concerned.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
Is that true?
I thought they had EIIR but were vandalised so frequently they switched it to something else to avoid controversy?
There was an article by a bloke called Sean Thomas, formerly of these parts, on Unherd today. Not sure whether you’ve seen it but you may find it interesting.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
Robert's business depends on him knowing if you're a crap driver, which some people might find embarrassing.
Crap drivers who know they're crap are actually perfectly good risks.
It's crap drivers who think they're great who are the real problems. (Worse, these people seem to think that the three beers they've drunk actually make them into better drivers.)
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I make no presumptions regarding benevolence or otherwise.
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
Try buying a house with cash without an audit trail backed up by the banking system, or even a new car and you won't get very far.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
He's right. Although I think the tradition was invented when the present Queen came to the throne. It's just that since the Union we have always had a king or queen where the highest number is the English one. James VII & II isn't a good example as it was before the Act of Union and was therefore separately both King of Scots and King of England.
There was an article by a bloke called Sean Thomas, formerly of these parts, on Unherd today. Not sure whether you’ve seen it but you may find it interesting.
There is?! I love that guy’s work. Always witty, insightful, articulate and debonair. I’ll check it out now. Ta
Is Prince Billy and his missus having different titles north of the border the same as the Sun having entirely different headlines for their loyal Scotch readers?
Jimmy 6 & 1 started the tradition. The latest generation are hardly likely to risk causing offence by ending a tradition established by a Scottish King.
I'll believe that when granny starts using ER I when she stays at Balmoral
Why would she be ER I?
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
The tradition is that they use the English numeral, otherwise we'd have had James 7th in 1685.
Only a recent tradition. James VII was most certainly referred to in that manner in Scotland, and indeed the correct terminology is VII and II. (And VIII and III if one is a Jacobite, which I am not). Even the pillar boxes had ER on them alone in Scotland, EIIR south of the border, when I was a lad.
I'm not disputing the Scottish practise, and long may it continue. I was addressing Philip's 'tradition' that 'they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English'.
But you were wrong, that is the tradition.
James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.
HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
Ministers were forced to climb down on travel restrictions to English Covid hotspots after a day of mounting confusion and anger left millions of people wondering if they needed to cancel bank holiday plans.
Contentious advice will be removed from the government website, a spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday evening. It had advised against all but essential travel to and from eight areas of England where the Covid variant identified in India has been spreading. Instead, people will be advised to “minimise travel”.
I initially on first glance read that as "cretinous advice".
The terms of the debate here show that all that's needed is a covid variant that even partially evades the vaccines and we are back in lockdown for three months.
Then another round of vaccines.
Then another three months lockdown
Once you decided to play the game, you became subject to the rules.
There isn't a 'don't play the game' option though. You appear to be blaming people for accepting vaccinations as though implying not doing so would have brought forward release from lockdown. I can't see how one would lead to the other.
All viruses have some degree of vaccine escape. There is no 100% effective vaccine for anything. What's really good for viruses is completely unvaccinated hosts, they have a much higher chance of hitting a mutation that increases their transmissability than in a vaxxed host.
Everything you do leaves digital footprints. And all the legislating in the world can't erase them - GPDR, the Data Protection Act, etc. are all bandaids on the fact that in a digital world someone is always going to know where you are.
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
That's a seductive line of reasoning but it relies on the relative benevolence or ambivalence of organisations collecting your personal data.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
Robert's business depends on the collection of personal data so he does have an interest here.
To be fair, it's a pretty explicit trade: let us track your driving and save (on average) $500 a year on your auto insurance. For anyone earning less than about $120,000/year, that's a fairly easy calculation to make.
Blimey - is car insurance considerably more expensive in the USA than the UK ? My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.
Comments
Edit: Sorry, of course you do!
'Rob Roberts report: www.parliament.uk/globalassets/mps-lords--offices/standards-and-financial-interests/independent-expert-panel/hc-245---the-conduct-of-mr-rob-roberts-mp.pdf
Is six weeks enough for a recall petition?
Apparently not in this case. I post a comment below from Vote UK Forum
'In this case it's not the length of the suspension but the reason for it that's the problem. The Recall of MPs Act 2015, s. 1 says an MP becomes subject to a recall petition if "following on from a report from the Committee on Standards in relation to the MP, the House of Commons orders the suspension of the MP from the service of the House for a specified period of the requisite length." The length is 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days, so six weeks is longer.
But in this case Roberts's sanction is proposed by the Independent Expert Panel which does not go through the Committee on Standards; it reports directly to the House. So his suspension would not follow on from a report from the Committee on Standards and would not invoke the Act.'
'
It's a load of authoritarian rubbish from Gestapo Gove who wants to control everyone's lives forever.
Between one in six and one in five of those in ICU were outside of the vulnerable Groups 1-9 (obviously the percentage has increased as the more vulnerable have been vaxxed).
The one in seven children who experience covid symptoms for over 5 weeks if infected do concern me. I’ve had splitting headaches that last for days; having one that continues relentlessly for over a month with a possibility of just continuing on and on - that’s not good.
Myalgia, fatigue, breathlessness - all not good.
Which is why I feel a touch guilty that when my loved ones (all adults) are vaxed, the risk goes down hugely for them but not for all.
However, the draw of true herd immunity is in front of us, and will be very welcome indeed.
Certainly in the hospitals we have not been told to end these, at least not yet. Indeed fresh PPE guidance was issued nationally just last week.
If that is the case, why not let people make the personal, informed choice? Those who are risk averse follow the guidance, those who are not do what they want. The result is still sufficient modification of societal behaviour in the aggregate to achieve the desired public health outcome without forcing anyone to do what they are unwilling to do. As a neo-libertarian, that will always be the option I'd prefer.
00 04 9
05 09 6
10 14 12
15 19 30
20 24 59
25 29 115
30 34 210
35 39 354
40 44 570
45 49 1128
50 54 2011
55 59 3285
60 64 3872
65 69 8083
70 74 11056
75 79 15318
80 84 20413
85 89 22248
90+ 23560
If there's a credible risk for an individual then let the individuals weigh up their own risk profiles and make a choice.
It isn't the government's responsibility to stop anyone from ever ending up in intensive care, its responsibility is to ensure that intensive care is available if it is needed.
Mine is a personal choice to avoid if at all possible any unnecessary restrictions on my person.
Others can wear masks if they wish.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7892320/
It seems average temperatures between 5 and 11C are the worst statistically for spread, though the error bars are large. This month has averaged 9.7C so far in Central England.
Of course one person's freedom may impinge on another's personal space. I think a lot of people are wary of crowded places, and will be for some time.
Those taking off their masks and crowding in need to display some manners to the rest.
Rather, I feel I have a responsibility to remain unmasked (after June 21) in order to encourage others. We are social animals and most tend to “go with the flow”.
Do you know if there is any data available on how people who voted one way in the first round voted in the second? i.e how many UKIP voters in round 1 voted green in round 2 and so on?
"But because Roberts appealed a finding against him by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, causing his case to be referred to the IEP, the formal process under the Recall of MPs Act of 2015 will not be triggered."
Instead of being frightened by that, embrace it.
"FIA to look at IndyCar rule that would have denied Leclerc pole
The FIA will look at IndyCar's rule deleting times for drivers who cause red flags in qualifying and deem its suitability for Formula 1 after Charles Leclerc's Monaco crash."
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia-to-look-at-indycar-rule-that-would-have-denied-leclerc-pole/6515091/
However... 'Long common cold', 'Long flu' .. Money needs to flow to the sector, but they really need to up their game.
The fact is that Parker was facing a vote of no confidence at the next AGM in October. That's not something anyone would have bothered tabling resolutions for and campaigning for if he was going anyway.
I am frightened by it - and I want better safeguards.
That loophole really should be closed.
The tradition is they use the higher numeral, regardless of whether it is Scottish or English.
I'm not paranoid (I have a gmail address) but refuse to use Facebook and block absolutely everything that can be blocked, just for annoyance value if nothing else.
A lot of Chinese electronic tat (ip webcams, phones etc) does seem to enjoy sending messages back to the mother country, so if you care about that it is worth stopping.
It’s just that there is no value in annoying pro-monarchist sentiment.
The ability to collect personal information doesn't equate to the requirement to do so - organisations can because they can. Simply nodding that aside as a function of technology is weak. There should be much more robust prescription against both the State and private organisations telling them what information they can capture, when they can capture it, how such information can and should be used and for how long it should be retained.
I don't presume benevolence or ambivalence - that doesn't mean I presume malevolence either - but there's a strong argument too much information is being gathered too easily without adequate safeguards (the odd privacy notice here or there or a note in some legalistic small print doesn't really cut it) or accountability. The use of Apps, the "tracking" of individuals via their phones can be justified but that doesn't make it right.
The wider issue is whether the individual is entitled to a degree of privacy from the State or from private enterprise (in 1984, it was a telescreen, in 2021, it's a mobile phone but is there in truth much difference?). In what way does the State or capitalism have a right to know where I am, what I'm doing, where I'm going or what I have for lunch?
I’m not aware of any international index on such matters, but there is a degree of curtain twitchery in the culture (manifesting in the Daily Mail, local authority bureaucracy, and an extreme love of road signage).
I presume some of this is about density of population. NZ feels much more “live and let live” despite the best efforts of Jacinda.
Most recently, the French virologist who discovered HIV claims that vaccines kill.
https://twitter.com/AnukulShenoy/status/1397197510825943042
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/nobel-prize-winner-mass-covid-vaccination-an-unacceptable-mistake-that-is-creating-the-variants
Anyhow, we probably only have about another fifteen years to go until we find out.
The big takeaway is that the young, if hospitalised, have a far far greater chance of surviving.
There are many such indexes, including one helpfully called the Nanny state index: thought it only cover Europe:
http://nannystateindex.org/
If there were to be another King James then unless there's any constitutional changes they would be James VIII for the whole United Kingdom, not James III in England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_Lion
Scotland doesn't have a monarch anymore, nor does England, the United Kingdom does. Hence no more differentiated ordinal numbers.
It shows U.K. mid-table, with Germany freest.
Interestingly, I think Germany has a much better approach to privacy than the U.K., too (despite it causing issues during coronavirus).
But this table is only about food, alcoholic and tobacco.
For me nanny statism encompasses drug regulation, driving rules, planning, cctv, privacy legislation, “hate” speech, burqa-bans etc etc.
Now there's an established convention that the higher number is used, but I'd be surprised if that were ever tested in practice. As long as both the Union and the Monarchy survive, they'll probably all pick names that don't cause this headache. If and when either falls then the problem becomes moot, of course.
Contentious advice will be removed from the government website, a spokesperson confirmed on Tuesday evening. It had advised against all but essential travel to and from eight areas of England where the Covid variant identified in India has been spreading. Instead, people will be advised to “minimise travel”.
I thought they had EIIR but were vandalised so frequently they switched it to something else to avoid controversy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_Box_War
Worth noting as well that William would be William VII of Normandy.
To rationalise this usage, it was suggested by Winston Churchill that, in the future, the higher of the two numerals from the English and Scottish sequences would always be used.[6] So, theoretically, any future British King Edward would be given the number IX, even though there have only been two (or three) previous Edwards in Scotland, but any future King Alexander would be given the number IV, even though he would be the first Alexander to reign in England. This had been the case de facto since the Acts of Union 1707; eight of the twelve monarchs since the Act had names never previously used in England or Scotland (Anne, six Georges, and Victoria), sidestepping the issue, and the English numbers for the remaining four monarchs' names (William, two Edwards, and Elizabeth) have consistently been higher and were used
My point is a much simpler one. What is known, cannot ever be truly unknown. Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back in.
You can force, through regulations, firms to not use data in certain ways, or to use it only in others.
But the reality is that none of these regulations moves the needle more than a smidgen. Because once knowledge exists, then organisations (commercial or governmental) will find ways to use it.
Final point: every one of us could be massively more privacy conscious than we are. We could all use TOR to access politicalbetting. And we could use individual email addresses and usernames based around random sets of characters hosted with someone like Protonmail for each service we use. We could disable location services on our phones. We could keep our cash as... errr.. cash.
There a million ways people could increase their privacy. Yet people *choose* to use Gmail, even though they know Google is reading their emails so they can target advertising better to them. Simply: it's easier.
So, I reject the 'oh we must regulate' crowd. Firstly, because those regulations are incredibly burdensome for business without actually improving privacy. And secondly, because consumer can choose privacy over convenience today. They have that option, and if they choose not to, why should the government force them?
https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1397256155366363140?s=21
Lol
It's crap drivers who think they're great who are the real problems. (Worse, these people seem to think that the three beers they've drunk actually make them into better drivers.)
I’ll check it out now. Ta
James II and VII (or James VII and II) was King of England and King of Scotland, not King of the United Kingdom.
HMQ is Queen of the United Kingdom, not Queen of England or Queen of Scotland.
9 weeks after first
What's really good for viruses is completely unvaccinated hosts, they have a much higher chance of hitting a mutation that increases their transmissability than in a vaxxed host.
My last few renewals have been around £200 or so.