Howdy, Stranger!

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

Local lockdowns by stealth – it is all looking rather chaotic – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
    Don't be ridiculous. I've been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years and can report no such enhanced evacuations!
    But what do you have to compare with?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,011
    Leon said:

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    White House spokeswoman talks of UFOs

    https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1397256155366363140?s=21

    Lol

    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
    The Phil Collins Secret was sublime!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited May 2021
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,866

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
    The Queen Mother was Scottish. Not sure why we would go back further than that, TBH.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    No qualms with data collection if it's an explicit decision and trade.

    The issue is major databases when no such decision has been made. Though what can be done about it I don't know, GDPR was such a crap way of dealing with it but I've not seen anything better.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
    The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486

    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.

    You should be able to bring the date forward if you manage your booking online, as I advised yesterday. I advanced mine by three weeks!
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
    Although William Robert is one possible solution to the numbering problem. We've not had a double named monarch before, but it has been done elsewhere in Europe (e.g. the current King of the Netherlands.)

    William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
    The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
    But she doesn't really count as part of the ancestral line for the monarchs though does she?
  • CookieCookie Posts: 8,142

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    Ha ha - yes, it would look like he was trying to disguise himself as a more popular member of the family.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 8,685
    Scott_xP said:

    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795

    Like now, you mean?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    Yet again we are back to hospitalisations in the young! Your daily reminder that this data is not stratified by underlying health conditions, and thus is largely meaningless given those with UHC have already been jabbed!

    I bore even myself making this point.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,574

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
    The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
    But she doesn't really count as part of the ancestral line for the monarchs though does she?
    She might do if you go back far enough! As is often the case with these very old aristocratic families.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Omnium said:

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
    If you can identify as a female, why can't you identify as an inanimate object?

    King Tampon I
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Could be Charles and ridicule of course.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    Scott_xP said:

    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795

    I only wish he had prioritised the economy moor.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,749
    edited May 2021
    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,011

    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
    The UK was a Republic long before the 1707 Act of Union...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    That is because of legislation.

    Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
    Don't be ridiculous. I've been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years and can report no such enhanced evacuations!
    How would you know whether your evacuations are enhanced or not?

    (Unless you have an omniverous friend and the two of you compare the mass of your evacuations.)
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    ydoethur said:

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.

    Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
    Omnium said:

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
    Queen Caroline, surely?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    No qualms with data collection if it's an explicit decision and trade.

    The issue is major databases when no such decision has been made. Though what can be done about it I don't know, GDPR was such a crap way of dealing with it but I've not seen anything better.
    That's a fair point: there are certain services which are essential, and which one cannot opt out from. There should be a delineation between where people choose products (knowing they are trading privacy for convenience) and where they cannot.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,011
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    What are you driving? A Tata Nano??!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    ydoethur said:

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.

    Wikipedia calls her Mary II. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_II_of_England
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    edited May 2021
    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Does seem slightly odd when one remembers Scottish history (and English and Irish and Welsh, where Charles I was concerned). But then when one thinks of William and Yorkshire ...
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,011
    rcs1000 said:

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
    Don't be ridiculous. I've been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years and can report no such enhanced evacuations!
    How would you know whether your evacuations are enhanced or not?

    (Unless you have an omniverous friend and the two of you compare the mass of your evacuations.)
    Because I WAS an ominovore for 16 years prior to 1991?
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,891

    Carnyx said:

    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.
    So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.

    I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?

    As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
    The Queen Mother was a daughter of a Scottish Earl.
    I am sure I have read accounts which stated that her real father was far more humble than an Earl.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kjh said:

    Pagan2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Barnesian said:

    Fenman said:

    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.
    Everything we do leaves a digital footprint, you dont have to let the footprints merge into a trackable path though you can isolate each footprint so the trail deadends
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Carnyx said:

    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.
    So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.

    I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?

    As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
    Unless there's a constitutional change a future James would be King James VIII of the United Kingdom.

    Not James III of England. There is no such think as the King of England anymore, as much as Americans and HYUFD seem to think that still exists.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    ydoethur said:

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.

    Should have kept going with epithets and nicknames. Even when people don't remember what the nickname part meant it makes it easier, like William Rufus. And if all the Henrys had such nicknames it'd save time on remembering which one they were and what they were known for - Henry the Fat Bigamist for instance.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675

    rcs1000 said:

    Looks like the @Casino_Royale campaign against the National Trust has succeeded.

    Don’t mess with pissed off boomer-manques from the Hampshire-Surrey borders.

    I’d be shitting myself if I were vegetarian.

    And being vegetarian your bowel movements would be twice the size, so shitting yourself would be no trivial matter.
    Don't be ridiculous. I've been a vegetarian for nearly 30 years and can report no such enhanced evacuations!
    How would you know whether your evacuations are enhanced or not?

    (Unless you have an omniverous friend and the two of you compare the mass of your evacuations.)
    Because I WAS an ominovore for 16 years prior to 1991?
    So normal poo is but a distant memory?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,859

    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
    Although William Robert is one possible solution to the numbering problem. We've not had a double named monarch before, but it has been done elsewhere in Europe (e.g. the current King of the Netherlands.)

    William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
    It'd be amusing if he took any of those quite honestly. More immediately, Charles might not be Charles.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    edited May 2021

    ydoethur said:

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.

    Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
    Omnium said:

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
    Queen Caroline, surely?
    I recently read a book on the Popes, and given all the various antipopes, and a few who may not have existed, it's a bit hard to track. I'm pretty sure a couple were given the same name and regnal number as another by mistake, or mistakenly counted a 'fake' pope when numbering themselves.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
    The UK was a Republic long before the 1707 Act of Union...
    The UK didn't exist until 1801.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Why is it that in Michigan?

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829

    Carnyx said:

    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.
    So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.

    I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?

    As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
    Would Acts of Parliament stand in for nonexistent pillar boxes pre-Rowland Hill? Wiki says for instance that Sailor Bill's- if I understand things correctly - first act was the Regency Act 1830 = 1 Will.4 c.2.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,829
    edited May 2021

    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
    The UK was a Republic long before the 1707 Act of Union...
    The UK didn't exist until 1801.
    IT, or an earlier variant, did during the Cromwellian conquest 1650-1660. Not a Kingdom obviously (edit) so you are still right!
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Pulpstar said:

    kle4 said:

    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.)
    King Billy would be just fine, whatever the number
    Alright, but if we get a King Billy Bob at some point I'm going republican.
    If we get a King Billy Bob then the Republicans have probably taken over already.
    Although William Robert is one possible solution to the numbering problem. We've not had a double named monarch before, but it has been done elsewhere in Europe (e.g. the current King of the Netherlands.)

    William also has three middle names: Arthur, Philip and Louis...
    It'd be amusing if he took any of those quite honestly. More immediately, Charles might not be Charles.
    Louis: a bit too French
    Arthur: too Monty Python!

    Could surprise us with Philip though...?
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    Are these new outbreaks in the several towns partly connected to mismanagement, apart from the obvious fact that travel from and to India should have been frozen sooner? Did the latter have any connection to our negotiations over a trade deal with India?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 16,322
    edited May 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    That is because of legislation.

    Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
    Probably depends to what extent the UK wants to be the money laundering capital of the world. As far as I can tell we want to be that capital for ex overseas government officials and the already rich but not so keen for smaller time Joe Public Criminals.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,773
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    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)
    I hope they have a closer scottish relation than that, as that's going a long way back to be 'part' something.
    You can't get much more Scottish than having a Scottish mother, a father who was King of Scotland and being Queen of Scotland yourself. HM is a direct descendent of James VI of Scotland who united the crowns in 1603 and of course was the son of Mary Queen of Scots - who was herself descended from both the English and the Scots royal families.

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.

    Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
    Omnium said:

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
    Queen Caroline, surely?
    I recently read a book on the Popes, and given all the various antipopes, and a few who may not have existed, it's a bit hard to track. I'm pretty sure a couple were given the same name and regnal number as another by mistake, or mistakenly counted a 'fake' pope when numbering themselves.
    yet they all shit in the woods.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Scott_xP said:

    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795

    iirc the average age of covid death is ≈ 82.

    So we need the context of what he said and what else was said to be honest.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Of course, we shouldn’t forget the whole numbering system is rather artificial anyway. After all, there have been eleven Kings of England called Edward, but regnal numbers only observe eight. Similarly, almost nobody talks of ‘Mary II’ even though England had two Queen Marys - 1553-58 and 1688-1694. It’s not even good enough to say one is known by her husband’s name as well, because technically Mary I was a joint monarch of England with Phillip II of Spain.

    Well indeed. The numbering of the English Kings really ought to start from Athelstan, but it's a bit too much of a faff to go back and correct it now. A bit like with the Popes, where there are at least one too many Johns, I seem to recall...
    Omnium said:

    Cookie said:

    CatMan said:

    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.
    He will get laughed off the throne if he tries to call himself George, or indeed anything apart from Charles. People will do knowing air quotes when they refer to him. King "George".
    I know this sort of thing was once commonplace, but people have forgotten.
    It's either Charles or ridicule.
    Especially now with his grandson being George, taking his grandchild's name would be a bit odd.
    The intent, and the modern age may have him choosing to be King Elizabeth, and perhaps the IIIrd.
    Queen Caroline, surely?
    I recently read a book on the Popes, and given all the various antipopes, and a few who may not have existed, it's a bit hard to track. I'm pretty sure a couple were given the same name and regnal number as another by mistake, or mistakenly counted a 'fake' pope when numbering themselves.
    yet they all shit in the woods.
    That was to get out of Rome no doubt, which apparently was quite the awful and deadly place to live, especially in summer.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
    You can use Tor to access pb, you just need to let it use Javascript.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    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.
    So how would the next King James be numbered? The English numeral (James III) or the higher numeral (James VIII)? You are arguing that he would be known as James VIII.

    I might point out that neither William the Bastard nor William Rufus were kings of Wales. I don't know if the original Orangeman and Sailor Bill were known as First and Second respectively. Are pillar boxes the only allowable evidence?

    As for a refreshingly different regnal name for Charles, I've often thought Leroy would tick a few boxes.
    Would Acts of Parliament stand in for nonexistent pillar boxes pre-Rowland Hill? Wiki says for instance that Sailor Bill's- if I understand things correctly - first act was the Regency Act 1830 = 1 Will.4 c.2.
    Pre-Trollope (Hill was stamps).
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,947
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Just renewed my CAR with LV
    £350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2021

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Just renewed my CAR with LV
    £350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
    Hello TRUMP, did you need to RANDOMLY shout certain WORDS? 😉
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    rcs1000 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
    You can use Tor to access pb, you just need to let it use Javascript.
    well thats a vulnerability in itself and as I am confident my pb identity is isolated from all my other identities its safer to access pb normally and not risk forgetting to turn js off for other sites
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    Politics For All
    @PoliticsForAlI
    Police cars revolving lightFlag of Scotland | BREAKING: Nicola Sturgeon has abandoned her Zero Covid strategy

    Via
    @Telegraph


    Overruled Devi Sridhar?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/25/world/asia/india-covid-death-estimates.html

    NYT thinks India deaths underreported, 1.6 million likely and 4.2 million possible.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 18,053
    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
    All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    edited May 2021
    Covid "local lockdowns" - the thing about this Government on/off guidance is, notwithstanding the U-turn/mixed messaging, it was incredibly cack-handedly stupid if they really have ambitions/intentions to proceed with the road map as planned. Most people, regardless of their general position, understand that there will continue to be outbreaks of infection to a lesser or greater extent over the next few months. However, those in favour of continuing with the roadmap understand that the vaccines provide an opportunity to manage through sensible use of health resources on the basis there is no real chance of serious shortfalls in NHS provision.

    The whole roadmap blows apart if you are continuing to implement (whether through "guidance" or otherwise) measures of local restrictions in response to every little sign of a "hotspot". The point of the vaccinations of the old and vulnerable in particular, is it shouldn't develop into anything worse. By all means put out sensible warnings highlighting that outbreaks are occurring and let people make their own personal decisions. But that's it. Otherwise you're just heading back to the whole country being in "local lockdown" and increasing demands from businesses and local authorities for ongoing government support to mitigate the impacts. And the cycle is never broken.

    I'm sure, therefore, that it can only have been put forward by somebody pushing an alternative agenda of delaying June 21st.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 43,675

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
    All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
    That black car parked just along the road from his house?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,947

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Just renewed my CAR with LV
    £350 EXCESS fully comp £179 PER YEAR.
    Hello TRUMP, did you need to RANDOMLY shout certain WORDS? 😉
    YES, ALWAYS.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
    All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
    I was already on watch lists anyway from when I lived with a girl that was an irish republican. I know this because it was early 90's we had a landline and they fucked up bugging us and only the extension phone rang when I picked it up I got a ring tone which was answered with "hello operations". Sort of a giveaway. However frankly if I am on a watch list they are wasting man hours on me and the more they have to do that the less time they have to keep people that are actually a risk under surveillance. Enough like me they have to actually start doing their jobs rather than suspecting people who won't give all their data to the state are bad guys
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Why is it that in Michigan?

    Ridiculous regulations.

    Which push up the cost of insurance.

    Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.

    Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    "Overall, our data provide strong evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans robustly establishes the two arms of humoral immune memory: long-lived BMPC and MBCs."

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=organic&utm_campaign=NGMT_USG_JC01_GL_Nature
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 49,002

    Scott_xP said:

    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795

    iirc the average age of covid death is ≈ 82.

    So we need the context of what he said and what else was said to be honest.
    Is that mean, median or mode?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 30,631
    Some ludicrous eulogies for George Floyd

    The death was a tragedy. The act was a crime. The murderer has been rightfully convicted and jailed

    But the victim was not a hero, nor a saint
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    That is because of legislation.

    Wouldn't it be better to be getting rid of laws and regulations, rather than adding to them?
    Probably depends to what extent the UK wants to be the money laundering capital of the world. As far as I can tell we want to be that capital for ex overseas government officials and the already rich but not so keen for smaller time Joe Public Criminals.
    Typical. It is always the little guy who gets squeezed out.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,571
    Scott_xP said:

    Just booked second vaccination

    9 weeks after first

    Congrats Scott! Boris has got you through the pandemic :D
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Why is it that in Michigan?

    Ridiculous regulations.

    Which push up the cost of insurance.

    Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.

    Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
    Presumably also a factor is that the USA's litigous system is even worse than our own?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795

    iirc the average age of covid death is ≈ 82.

    So we need the context of what he said and what else was said to be honest.
    Is that mean, median or mode?
    Median is 83. Says ONS

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Leon said:

    Some ludicrous eulogies for George Floyd

    The death was a tragedy. The act was a crime. The murderer has been rightfully convicted and jailed

    But the victim was not a hero, nor a saint

    De mortuis nihil nisi bonum
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486

    Politics For All
    @PoliticsForAlI
    Police cars revolving lightFlag of Scotland | BREAKING: Nicola Sturgeon has abandoned her Zero Covid strategy

    Via
    @Telegraph


    Overruled Devi Sridhar?

    Devi abandoned zerovidism a few days ago.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,103

    Politics For All
    @PoliticsForAlI
    Police cars revolving lightFlag of Scotland | BREAKING: Nicola Sturgeon has abandoned her Zero Covid strategy

    Via
    @Telegraph


    Overruled Devi Sridhar?

    Devi abandoned zerovidism a few days ago.
    Just in time eh? :smiley:
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,510

    Yet again we are back to hospitalisations in the young! Your daily reminder that this data is not stratified by underlying health conditions, and thus is largely meaningless given those with UHC have already been jabbed!

    I bore even myself making this point.

    The ICNARC data (for ICU admissions) is explicitly split by eligibility for vaccine group - for those in Groups 1-4, Groups 5-9, and outside of any vulnerability group (Phase 2)

    Those in Phase 2 have not already been jabbed.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 5,657
    IanB2 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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?
    You cannot use Tor to access political betting. I know have tried. I do use tor all I can. I do use throwaway email address for every fora though. I dont carry a phone, I dont own a car, I use cash as much as possible.I dont use facebook/twitter/whatsapp etc. Personal emails I encrypt. I suspect my digital footprint is lower than most. I don't advocate everyone does this I merely say I protect my privacy as much as I can and others can choose how much they protect theirs.
    All of that behaviour has probably put you on a watch list, and the intelligence services know more about your movements than those of the rest of us put together.
    That black car parked just along the road from his house?
    See this I see is the problem, we lambasted the DDR for the stasi and yet reasonable people who did so are saying and accepting I should be under suspicion and monitored because I don't let the state track everywhere I go, everything I buy and everyone I talk to.....Is it just me that finds this a level of intrusion the stasi could only dream of?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506
    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Second source tells me that Boris Johnson *did* dismiss Covid as "only" killing 80-year-olds last autumn - as per @peston claims.

    They claimed he added: "If I was 80 I wouldn't care, I'd be more worried about the economy".

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-said-covid-only-24184724

    Going to go out on a limb here, and say that when Boris Johnson is 80, he will take the view that the country should be organised completely for his convenience.

    https://twitter.com/RobDotHutton/status/1397277885749153795

    iirc the average age of covid death is ≈ 82.

    So we need the context of what he said and what else was said to be honest.
    Is that mean, median or mode?
    Median is 83. Says ONS

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/averageageofthosewhohaddiedwithcovid19
    Looking at the link - everyone always forgets the modal average.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    Yes, average car insurance rates are about $1,300/year. (In Michigan average rates above $3,000)
    Why is it that in Michigan?

    Ridiculous regulations.

    Which push up the cost of insurance.

    Which then result in large numbers (around one-in-five) of vehicles on the road without insurance.

    Which means that everyone else's rates rise because if you are involved in an accident with an uninsured vehicle, then your insurance is going to be paying.
    Presumably also a factor is that the USA's litigous system is even worse than our own?
    It is certainly the case that medical indemnity insurance varies tremendously from State to state. Sometimes to the point that services are not cost effective in some states. Neonatal paediatrics in California is so litigious that it is impossible to staff.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 29,258
    New:

    chancellor Rishi Sunak is to set out plans to block companies from listing on the London Stock Exchange on national security grounds as government concerns mount about “dirty money” in British financial markets


    https://www.ft.com/content/4c5395b9-5c96-4ff3-87e0-53f0b7608eb4?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a via @financialtimes
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    The decision hasn't been made yet, so the more information now the better.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 706

    stodge said:

    rcs1000 said:


    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.
    I suspect that the tracking data itself isn't actually the valuable but - you could probably just give people an empty plastic box with a light in and the effects would be the same.

    I'd expect that the two biggest effects are that people who think insurance companies won't be happy with their driving will avoid a company that fits black boxes (I would fit in this category, as I suspect would Dura Ace), and people who think they are being tracked drive more gently.

    RCS may be able to confirm, but I suspect that matching driving style as recorded by black boxes to probably of making a claim is actually quite difficult.
    There was an interesting effect round here in the first lockdown where because the roads were so empty traffic speeds became very high (I found myself having crept up to 100mph on an A road with a 50mph limit on my way to work one morning, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one). According to my aquantance in the local fire service they were quite concerned that they were going to have to deal with a resulting spate of very high energy collisions. They actually saw almost none, even in proportion to the traffic on the roads - they concluded after a certain amount of head scratching that pretty much everyone left on the roads was self selectingly good enough to drive at the speeds they were achieving. I'm not sure how you'd calculate that sort of thing into the black box data analysis...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,741
    Thread on Scottish attitudes toward immigration:

    https://twitter.com/deanmthomson/status/1397169758907273216?s=21

    tl:dr “more or less the same as English attitudes”, despite what the SNP would have you believe.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486

    Yet again we are back to hospitalisations in the young! Your daily reminder that this data is not stratified by underlying health conditions, and thus is largely meaningless given those with UHC have already been jabbed!

    I bore even myself making this point.

    The ICNARC data (for ICU admissions) is explicitly split by eligibility for vaccine group - for those in Groups 1-4, Groups 5-9, and outside of any vulnerability group (Phase 2)

    Those in Phase 2 have not already been jabbed.
    Sure but the point I’m making is that the 50,000 hospitalisations you quotes will include those with UHC. I have yet to find a decent source that shows hospitalisations stratified by both age and UHC for granular age cohorts. Deaths are so stratified under NHS data, but I’ve not seen anything that shows hospitalisations in that way.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Leon said:

    Some ludicrous eulogies for George Floyd

    The death was a tragedy. The act was a crime. The murderer has been rightfully convicted and jailed

    But the victim was not a hero, nor a saint

    Hero is a word which is already pretty broadly applied, I don't think most mind it even being applied to, say, sporting heroes, so in general as a word it has lost its impact a bit in any case.

    Martyr, if used, is a more interesting one. I'm sure I recall a piece on Unherd, not entirely surprisingly, on that point, I think arguing it can undermine status as a victim, make the icon eclipse the person, but it was a bit rambly if memory serves.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,486
    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    Very good question - Ascot is only a few days before 21 June anyway.

    The Evening Standard tonight was hinting that the England vs Scotland game at Wembley would be a ‘test event’ with a full crowd. I suspect it’s just a way of the government circumnavigating its own rules - as I predicted many times on here!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 7,506

    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    The decision hasn't been made yet, so the more information now the better.
    A pilot event on June 15-19, when the decision is set to be taken on June 14?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    IshmaelZ said:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/05/25/world/asia/india-covid-death-estimates.html

    NYT thinks India deaths underreported, 1.6 million likely and 4.2 million possible.

    That'd be quite the undercounting, putting them somewhere between the better performing European nations and the most deadly outcome in the world.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    GIN1138 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Just booked second vaccination

    9 weeks after first

    Congrats Scott! Boris has got you through the pandemic :D
    Truly, he shall come to be seen as Papa Boris, Father of the Nation.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 36,822
    edited May 2021

    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
    No test was required at the footy on Sunday, though interestingly there were sniffer dogs. I have never seen these at a match. Drugs, bombs or covid? Only the latter makes sense.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2021
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    The decision hasn't been made yet, so the more information now the better.
    A pilot event on June 15-19, when the decision is set to be taken on June 14?
    Think of it as a decision tree.

    If 14 June says OK to lift restrictions
    Then Pilot is redundant, but allowed more people to attend events early anyway.
    Else Pilot information can be used to put in place alternative restictions, looser than today but not quite no restrictions.

    In either scenario the pilot was useful.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
    No test was required at the footy on Sunday, though interestingly there were sniffer dogs. I have never seen these at a match. Drugs bombs or covid? Only the latter makes sense.
    Because you were able to get past with your drugs and bombs?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,567

    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    Very good question - Ascot is only a few days before 21 June anyway.

    The Evening Standard tonight was hinting that the England vs Scotland game at Wembley would be a ‘test event’ with a full crowd. I suspect it’s just a way of the government circumnavigating its own rules - as I predicted many times on here!
    Not too late to change your name to AnaCassandrazina
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 43,011
    Leon said:

    Some ludicrous eulogies for George Floyd

    The death was a tragedy. The act was a crime. The murderer has been rightfully convicted and jailed

    But the victim was not a hero, nor a saint

    Neither was @SeanT ...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 11,570
    Foxy said:

    alex_ said:

    Covid - June 21st - a question.

    Does anyone understand what this date ACTUALLY means for the lifting of restrictions. There are lots of people commenting on the understanding that it effectively means no domestic restrictions after that date (or maybe a few things retained like masks on public transport).

    But this doesn't seem to align at all with what is actually happening. For example, the Government in conjunction with sporting bodies and others, is running "pilot events" - eg. latest is Eng-NZ test and Royal Ascot, apparently. But what are these "pilots" for? It's all very well saying that they are designed to inform how these events can run safely in the future, but what does that mean post June 21st? Post June 21st either things are happening with restrictions, or they aren't. And if they aren't, then what are the pilot events practicing for?

    I’m not sure how joined up a lot of this is. I too find the trial events challenging, because I don’t want to have to get a Covid test in the days leading up to going to a football match. I want to be able to go on the off chance. I am sure things have been learnt, but a lot of what will come out is bleeding obvious. If you test everyone before they go then of course few if any new cases will happen. I believe the government is heading to an advice not laws mode, not unlike the current situation in the Indian (sorry april02...) variant hot spots. This is going to challenge some, who will hate people who discard masks at the first possible moment (like me).
    No test was required at the footy on Sunday, though interestingly there were sniffer dogs. I have never seen these at a match. Drugs bombs or covid? Only the latter makes sense.
    That’s great to hear, and interesting in the context of dogs/Covid in the news in the last few days. Btw, very jealous of your cup win. In the 90’s it definitely felt like Leicester and Swindon were similar clubs, but our trajectories have been a bit different since...
This discussion has been closed.